OA and Sustainable Ocean Planning
1. Outcome
1Practitioners will gain practical understanding of four decision use cases. Sustainable ocean economy roadmaps integrate economic development targets with ecosystem health thresholds. SDG 14 implementation planning uses accounting-derived indicators to track progress on marine pollution, ecosystem management, fisheries sustainability, and economic benefits. Integrated coastal management connects land-based pressures to marine outcomes through physical supply and use tables. Marine Spatial Planning organises the spatial allocation of ocean activities using coherent, integrated data that supports analysis of trade-offs and synergies.
2. Requirements
- 1TG-0.1 General Introduction to Ocean Accounts — provides foundational understanding of Ocean Accounts, the Ocean Accounts Framework, and the conceptual basis for measuring sustainability through changes in natural capital
3. Guidance Material
3.1 What is sustainable ocean planning?
1Sustainable ocean planning encompasses the processes through which governments, communities, and other stakeholders make decisions about how ocean and coastal areas will be used and managed. These decisions concern the spatial allocation of activities, the regulation of resource extraction, the conservation of ecosystems, and the pursuit of economic objectives in ways that maintain or enhance the long-term productivity and resilience of marine environments. As established in TG-0.1, sustainable ocean development entails three interconnected objectives: advancing ocean-based economic activities that provide sustainable livelihoods, ensuring equitable distribution of benefits across society, and conserving and enhancing marine ecosystems and their ecological processes1.
2The practical challenge for sustainable ocean planning lies in reconciling competing demands on ocean space and resources. Fishing communities, shipping industries, offshore energy developers, tourism operators, conservation interests, and coastal residents all have legitimate claims on how marine areas should be managed. Planners require integrated information systems that can reveal the relationships between these different uses and the environmental conditions that underpin them. Traditional approaches to ocean management have often proved inadequate to the complexity of managing socio-ecological systems where environmental health underpins economic productivity, as they address individual sectors or issues in isolation2.
Decision use cases for sustainable ocean planning
1Ocean accounts support four principal decision use cases in sustainable ocean planning (see Section 3.5 for planning framework descriptions and Table 3.2.2 for required accounts).
2Sustainable ocean economy roadmaps integrate economic development targets with ecosystem health thresholds. Asset accounts for fish stocks, mangroves, coral reefs, and seagrass meadows provide baseline values against which depletion or enhancement can be measured (TG-3.1 Asset Accounts). Ocean economy thematic accounts quantify current contributions to GDP and employment (TG-2.5 Structure and Function of the Ocean Economy). Combined presentations of natural and produced capital stocks enable planners to assess whether blue economy growth is generating real wealth or converting natural capital into economic output (TG-3.8 Combined Presentations). The 2025 SNA treatment of depletion as a production cost provides a direct mechanism for this assessment: when extraction exceeds sustainable yield, net domestic product falls, and the fall registers unsustainable resource use3.
3SDG 14 implementation planning uses accounting-derived indicators to track progress on marine pollution, ecosystem management, fisheries sustainability, and economic benefits from sustainable ocean use. Physical extent accounts map directly to SDG indicator 14.5.1 (marine protected area coverage). Asset accounts for fish stocks support indicator 14.4.1 (proportion of fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels). Flow accounts for residuals support indicator 14.1.1 (coastal eutrophication and floating plastic debris density). Economic accounts enable assessment of the economic contribution of sustainable fisheries (14.7.1). The role of ocean accounts in supporting SDG 14 monitoring is detailed in Section 3.44.
4Integrated coastal management connects land-based pressures to marine outcomes through physical supply and use tables, supporting targeting of interventions to reduce nutrient loading, sediment transport, and other coastal impacts. The SEEA Central Framework enables systematic tracking of residual flows from land-based activities to marine receiving environments5. By spatially attributing pressures to sources and linking them to changes in ecosystem condition, ocean accounts support the identification of priority actions to reduce negative impacts6.
5Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) has emerged as a widely adopted framework for organising the spatial allocation of ocean activities. MSP processes typically involve mapping existing uses and conditions, identifying conflicts and compatibilities between different activities, and establishing zones or regulations that govern what activities are permitted in different areas. The effectiveness of MSP depends on the availability of coherent, integrated data that can support analysis of trade-offs and synergies across multiple objectives7. Ocean Accounts provide this structured information8.
3.2 Sustainability indicators from ocean accounts
1Three categories of sustainability indicators derived from ocean accounts are particularly relevant for sustainable ocean planning:
2Asset change indicators track the stocks and changes in stocks of marine natural capital. These include:
- 3Changes in ecosystem extent (area of different marine and coastal ecosystem types)
- 4Changes in ecosystem condition (physical, chemical, biotic, and landscape characteristics)
- 5Changes in stocks of individual environmental assets (fish biomass, seabed minerals)
- 6Ecosystem degradation (measured as the decline in expected future ecosystem service flows)
7The 2025 SNA establishes that sustainability concerns the maintenance of capital stocks necessary for long-term development, and that depletion of natural resources should be treated as a cost of production9. Net Domestic Product (NDP), which deducts both depreciation of produced assets and depletion of natural resources from GDP, is thus conceptually superior to GDP as a measure of economic performance from a sustainability perspective10. Ocean accounts enable the calculation of ocean-specific contributions to these adjusted aggregates, and the resulting figures indicate whether ocean-based economic activity is maintaining or eroding the natural capital base.
Ecosystem condition accounts: index structure and reference conditions
1For the reference condition options, normalisation formula, and aggregation methods used in ecosystem condition accounts, see TG-2.1 Aggregate Biophysical Indicators of Environmental State and TG-3.1 Asset Accounts Section 3.4.2.
2Flow indicators measure the services provided by marine ecosystems and their relationship to economic activity:
- 3Provisioning services (wild fish biomass harvested, aquaculture production, marine genetic resources)
- 4Regulating services (coastal protection from storms and erosion, carbon sequestration in blue carbon ecosystems, water purification)
- 5Cultural services (marine recreation, coastal tourism, cultural and spiritual values)
6The SEEA Ecosystem Accounting framework organises ecosystem services into supply and use tables that record which economic sectors benefit from which ecosystem services, and which ecosystem assets supply those services11.
7Pressure indicators measure the impacts of human activities on marine environments:
- 8Residual flows (pollution, marine debris, nutrient loading)
- 9Resource extraction rates relative to regeneration capacity
- 10Physical disturbance to marine habitats
- 11Climate-related pressures (ocean warming, acidification, sea level rise)
12The SEEA Central Framework provides the structure for recording these physical flows between the economy and the environment through Physical Supply and Use Tables (PSUTs)12. By spatially attributing pressures to sources and linking them to changes in ecosystem condition, ocean accounts support the identification of priority actions to reduce negative impacts.
13The following table summarises how indicators from different account types link across environmental, economic, social, and governance domains, and how each connects to specific SDG 14 targets.
14Table 3.2.1: Indicator-account linkage across sustainability domains
| Domain | Indicator | Account Source | Measurement | SDG Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental | Ecosystem extent | Extent accounts | Hectares | 14.2, 14.5 |
| Environmental | Ecosystem condition | Condition accounts | Index (0-1) | 14.2 |
| Economic | Ocean GVA | Economic accounts | USD | 14.7 |
| Social | Ocean employment | Labour accounts | FTE | 14.b |
| Governance | MPA coverage | Extent accounts (protected area overlay) | % of EEZ | 14.5 |
15For interim MPA coverage calculations, compilers should use UNEP-WCMC/IUCN WDPA data13.
Downward connections to accounts and indicators
1Sustainable ocean planning requires specific accounts and indicators to inform decision processes. The following table maps planning use cases to the accounts that should be compiled and the indicators that should be derived:
2Table 3.2.2: Planning use cases and required accounts
| Planning use case | Required accounts | Key indicators | Informed decisions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sustainable ocean economy roadmap | Ocean economy accounts (TG-2.5), Asset accounts (TG-3.1) | Ocean GVA, ocean employment, net ocean GVA (adjusted for depletion), fish stock biomass relative to sustainable yield | Setting economic growth targets consistent with natural capital maintenance; identifying sectors for investment and sectors requiring conservation measures |
| SDG 14 implementation plan | Extent accounts, condition accounts, asset accounts, residual flow accounts | MPA coverage (14.5.1), fish stocks at sustainable levels (14.4.1), coastal eutrophication (14.1.1), ocean economy contribution to GDP (14.7.1) | Tracking SDG 14 progress; identifying data gaps; targeting interventions to accelerate progress |
| Integrated coastal management | Physical supply-use tables (TG-3.2, TG-3.4), condition accounts, drainage basin allocation | Land-based residual flows to coastal waters (nutrient loading, sediment, pollutants), ecosystem condition by coastal zone | Identifying land-based sources of marine pollution; targeting wastewater treatment, agricultural runoff controls, and sediment retention measures |
| Marine spatial planning | Extent accounts, condition accounts, economic accounts, ecosystem service accounts | Ecosystem distribution by spatial unit, activity-ecosystem overlap, service flows by providing area | Spatial zoning, conflict resolution, trade-off analysis between conservation and development |
3Table 3.2.2 provides compilers with a roadmap for prioritising account compilation based on the planning processes active in their country. For example, a country developing its first SDG 14 Voluntary National Review should prioritise extent accounts (for MPA coverage), asset accounts for aquatic resources (for fish stock sustainability), and ocean economy accounts (for economic contribution indicators).
3.3 Balancing economic and environmental objectives
1A core function of sustainable ocean planning is to weigh trade-offs between economic objectives and environmental protection. Ocean accounts support that weighing by providing integrated information that allows decision-makers to assess how different choices affect both domains simultaneously. The extended balance sheet approach enables full assessment of ocean wealth. It records both produced assets (ports, vessels, coastal infrastructure) and natural capital (ecosystem assets, fish stocks, seabed resources) within a consistent valuation framework. As the 2025 SNA establishes, natural capital comprises natural resources (recognised within the integrated framework of national accounts) and ecosystem assets (measured through SEEA Ecosystem Accounting)14. Changes in this extended balance sheet indicate whether development is increasing overall wealth, converting natural capital into produced capital, or depleting natural capital without corresponding gains.
2The ecosystem degradation concept provides a monetary measure of the cost of environmental decline. Degradation is defined as the decline in the expected future ecosystem service flows attributable to human activity during an accounting period15. By measuring degradation in monetary terms consistent with national accounts, planners can assess the full costs of development pathways that damage marine ecosystems.
Illustrative two-step degradation calculation: As a simplified illustration, consider a coastal mangrove ecosystem providing USD 800,000/yr in coastal protection services. A decline in mangrove condition reduces that service flow by USD 100,000/yr. At a discount rate of 5%, capitalising this annual loss over the remaining asset life (say 30 years) yields a degradation charge of approximately USD 1.5 million, which is the present value of foregone protection services attributable to the condition decline. The full methodology requires specialist expertise in ecosystem service valuation and may require collaboration with environmental economists for first compilations. Detailed compilation guidance is deferred to a dedicated TG circular. See also SEEA-EA Chapter 10 and TG-3.1 Asset Accounts for asset valuation methodology16.
3Practical application of this balancing function involves several steps, summarised in Table 3.3.0 below.
4Table 3.3.0: Steps in applying ocean accounts to balance economic and environmental objectives
| Step | Description |
|---|---|
| Baseline assessment | Establish current stocks of ocean assets (ecosystem extent and condition, individual environmental assets, produced assets) and current flows (ecosystem services, economic production, residual flows). |
| Scenario development | Define alternative planning scenarios representing different combinations of economic development and conservation measures. |
| Impact assessment | For each scenario, project changes in asset stocks and service flows using accounting relationships and appropriate models. |
| Trade-off analysis | Compare scenarios in terms of their effects on multiple indicators spanning economic, environmental, and social dimensions. |
| Stakeholder deliberation | Present trade-off information in accessible formats to support informed decision-making by relevant stakeholders. |
5The accounting framework ensures that these assessments maintain internal consistency. As all components are linked through supply-use relationships and stock-flow identities, changes projected for one component must be reconciled with changes in related components. This discipline prevents the optimistic assumptions that can otherwise undermine planning processes.
Dashboard approach for ocean sustainability monitoring
1The ocean sustainability dashboard presents integrated sustainability information as a set of headline indicators spanning economic, environmental, and social dimensions, tracked over time and compared against targets. Table 3.3.1 presents an illustrative dashboard structure populated with synthetic data.
2Table 3.3.1: Ocean sustainability dashboard (Country A, illustrative)
| Dimension | Indicator | Current value | 5-year target | Status | Account source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economic | Ocean GVA (% of GDP) | 3.5% | 4.0% | On track | Ocean economy accounts |
| Net ocean GVA (adjusted for depletion) | 3.3% of GDP | 3.8% of GDP | Below target | Asset accounts + economy accounts | |
| Ocean employment (thousand FTE) | 250 | 280 | On track | Labour accounts | |
| Environmental | Fish stocks at sustainable levels (% of assessed stocks) | 68% | 80% | Below target | Asset accounts (aquatic resources) |
| Coral reef condition index (0-1) | 0.62 | 0.70 | Below target | Condition accounts | |
| Mangrove extent (km²) | 497 | 550 | Below target | Extent accounts | |
| Marine protected area coverage (% of EEZ) | 18% | 30% | On track | Extent accounts (protected area overlay) | |
| Social | Ocean employment share female (%) | 38% | 45% | On track | Labour accounts |
| Coastal communities with livelihood dependency >50% (count) | 127 | 100 | Action needed | Household survey / labour accounts disaggregated by coastal zone17 | |
| Pollution | Coastal eutrophication (nitrogen loading, tonnes/yr) | 8,500 | 6,000 | Below target | Residual flow accounts |
| Marine plastic debris density (g/km²) | 142 | 100 | Below target | Residual flow accounts |
3Figure 1.4.1 presents this dashboard as an interactive view for senior decision-makers. The summary cards report how many indicators sit in each status band. The controls let users filter by status or re-rank indicators by the size of their gap to target, whilst hovering any row reveals the underlying values. The contrast between on-track economic indicators and lagging environmental and pollution indicators is apparent.
Figure 1.4.1 Static snapshot of the ocean sustainability dashboard (Country A, illustrative).
4The dashboard indicates that whilst economic indicators are on track to meet targets, environmental and pollution indicators are lagging. This pattern suggests that economic growth is occurring at the expense of natural capital depletion, a finding confirmed by the gap between gross ocean GVA (3.5%) and net ocean GVA adjusted for depletion (3.3%). The dashboard structure enables presentation to cabinet-level decision-makers and supports integrated policy responses that address economic, environmental, and social dimensions simultaneously. This approach draws on the combined presentation principles described in TG-3.8 Combined Presentations, which provides detailed guidance on assembling multi-dimensional indicator sets from ocean accounts.
3.4 Integration with SDG monitoring
1SDG 14 (“Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development”) establishes a global framework for ocean sustainability with specific targets and indicators18. Ocean accounts provide a structured basis for producing many of these indicators and for understanding the relationships between them.
2Key SDG 14 targets and their connection to ocean accounts include:
| Target | Description | Ocean Account Connection |
|---|---|---|
| 14.1 | Reduce marine pollution | Residual flow accounts, ecosystem condition indicators |
| 14.2 | Sustainably manage marine ecosystems | Ecosystem extent and condition accounts, ecosystem services accounts |
| 14.4 | End overfishing, restore fish stocks | Asset accounts for aquatic resources, depletion calculations |
| 14.5 | Conserve coastal and marine areas | Ecosystem extent accounts (protected area overlay) |
| 14.7 | Increase economic benefits to SIDS and LDCs | Ocean economy thematic accounts, ecosystem services valuation |
SDG 14 monitoring and ocean accounts
1Sustainable Development Goal 14 encompasses ten targets and eleven indicators covering marine pollution, ecosystem management, ocean acidification, fisheries sustainability, marine protected areas, small-scale fisheries, marine research, and UNCLOS implementation19. As of 2024, all SDG 14 indicators have an established methodology (Tier I or II), although data coverage remains uneven across regions and indicators20. Data gaps persist, particularly for small island developing states and developing countries, and for targets relating to marine pollution (SDG 14.1), subsidies (SDG 14.6), and economic benefits to SIDS and LDCs (SDG 14.7)21.
2Ocean accounts provide a systematic framework for generating data that supports SDG 14 monitoring. Physical extent accounts map directly to indicator 14.5.1 (marine protected area coverage). Asset accounts for fish stocks support indicator 14.4.1 (proportion of fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels). Flow accounts for residuals support indicator 14.1.1 (coastal eutrophication and floating plastic debris density). Economic accounts enable assessment of the economic contribution of sustainable fisheries (14.7.1). The accounting approach provides an integrated information system from which a range of indicators can be drawn, in place of bespoke data collection for each indicator in isolation.
3The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), adopted in December 2022, establishes complementary targets relevant to ocean accounting, including Target 3 (30% of marine areas effectively conserved by 2030), Target 5 (sustainable harvesting of wild species), and Target 10 (sustainable management of areas under agriculture, aquaculture, and forestry)22. Ocean accounts can generate indicators aligned with both SDG 14 and GBF targets, and the shared ‘data foundations’ required for monitoring both frameworks reinforce the case for investment in ocean accounting.
4Beyond SDG 14, ocean accounts support monitoring of other SDGs that intersect with ocean sustainability. SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) targets benefit from accounts that track fish provisioning and aquaculture production. SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) targets can draw on ocean economy thematic accounts that measure employment and value added in ocean sectors. SDG 13 (Climate Action) targets connect to accounts measuring blue carbon stocks and sequestration services23.
5National ocean accounts provide the macro-level reference data against which corporate biodiversity disclosures can be benchmarked. Guidance on aligning ocean accounts with private sector reporting frameworks (including GBF Target 15 and the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures) is addressed in a forthcoming TG circular on private sector engagement.
3.5 Planning frameworks and ocean accounts
1Ocean accounts integrate with various planning frameworks that guide ocean governance.
2Marine Spatial Planning
3MSP processes require data on current uses, environmental conditions, and the compatibility of different activities. Ocean accounts supply four inputs to this process:
- 4Spatial data on ecosystem extent and condition organised by Basic Spatial Units (BSUs)
- 5Economic data on the location and intensity of ocean-related activities
- 6Service flow data revealing dependencies of economic activities on ecosystem condition
- 7Pressure data identifying sources and pathways of environmental impacts
8The systematic organisation of these data within the ocean accounts framework supports the GIS-based overlay analysis that is central to MSP. Planners can interrogate which areas face multiple pressures, which economic activities depend on ecosystem services supplied from specific locations, and where conservation measures would yield the greatest benefits24.
9Integrated Coastal Management
10Integrated coastal management addresses the land-sea interface where many ocean sustainability challenges originate. Here, ocean accounts trace the land-sea connections that sectoral data do not capture:
- 11Terrestrial-to-marine BSU links that trace land-based sources of marine pollution
- 12The dependence of coastal ecosystem condition on upstream pressures
- 13Coastal protection services supplied by natural ecosystems
- 14Changes in coastal land cover and their implications for marine environments
15The physical supply and use structure of the SEEA Central Framework enables systematic tracking of residual flows from land-based activities to marine receiving environments25.
16Compiling accounts that span the land-sea interface requires harmonising Basic Spatial Units (BSUs) across terrestrial and marine domains. The recommended approach is drainage basin allocation: identify the sub-catchments draining to each coastal BSU, then apportion terrestrial pressures (nutrient loading, sediment, pollutants) to marine receiving BSUs using a hydrological weighting factor derived from relative catchment area and runoff volume. GIS intersection is the standard technical method for this attribution. For first compilations, mapping coastal watershed polygons to the nearest marine BSU is an acceptable simplification. BSU design should match the resolution of available data, with no fixed resolution prescribed. See ESCAP (2021) Ocean Accounts: Piloting the SEEA EEA for the Ocean, Chapter 3, and SEEA-EA paras 3.29—3.44 for detailed spatial framework guidance26.
17Fisheries Management
18Fisheries management requires information on stock status, extraction rates, and the ecosystem context of target species. Four account-derived inputs bear on these decisions:
- 19Asset accounts for aquatic resources providing stock estimates and sustainable yield calculations
- 20Depletion measures indicating whether extraction exceeds natural regeneration
- 21Ecosystem condition data relevant to recruitment success and stock productivity
- 22Economic data on fishing industry structure and performance
23The SEEA Central Framework establishes the accounting treatment for aquatic resources, distinguishing between cultivated (aquaculture) and natural (wild-capture) biological resources and providing guidance on stock measurement and depletion accounting27.
24Blue Economy Development
25Blue economy strategies seek to expand ocean-based economic activity whilst maintaining environmental sustainability. For this purpose, accounts quantify both the activity and the natural capital it draws on:
- 26Current contributions of ocean sectors to GDP, employment, and trade
- 27The dependence of economic sectors on ecosystem services
- 28Opportunities for growth in sustainable ocean sectors
- 29Whether current development trajectories maintain or erode natural capital
30Ocean economy thematic accounts, structured according to SNA principles, provide the foundation for blue economy assessment28. See also TG-2.5 Structure and Function of the Ocean Economy for blue economy account compilation guidance.
31Climate Adaptation Planning
32Coastal and marine areas face climate risks including sea level rise, ocean warming, acidification, and increased storm intensity. Adaptation planning draws on four account-based measures:
- 33Blue carbon stocks and sequestration services
- 34Ecosystem condition indicators sensitive to climate change (coral bleaching, species range shifts)
- 35Coastal protection services at risk from ecosystem degradation
- 36The areas and populations most exposed to climate-related hazards
37The thematic accounting approach established in SEEA Ecosystem Accounting enables the development of carbon stock accounts that track carbon in different marine and coastal reservoirs29. See also TG-3.1 Asset Accounts for carbon stock account methodology.
3.6 Implementation process for ocean accounts
Implementation process for ocean accounts: lessons from ESCAP pilots
1The ESCAP Ocean Accounts Pilot Programme (2019) demonstrated a structured implementation methodology across seven countries: China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Samoa, Thailand, Vanuatu, and Vietnam. 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 prioritised30.
2The Diagnostic Tool addresses two core components:
3Table 3.6.1: 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 3.6.2: 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 seven ESCAP pilots, which demonstrated substantial results within an approximately six-month timeframe31.
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 extent32.
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 compiled33.
Prioritising account types: a decision framework
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 recommended starting point, not a mandatory decision rule, and the ESCAP Diagnostic Tool and Table 3.2.2 provide complementary guidance.
2Table 3.6.3: 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. Cross-reference Table 3.2.2 and the ESCAP Diagnostic Tool for further context-specific guidance.
3.7 Worked example: Ocean sustainability dashboard
1To demonstrate the practical application of ocean accounts to sustainable ocean planning, this section presents a synthetic worked example showing how account-derived indicators populate an ocean sustainability dashboard for decision-makers. The example uses hypothetical data for a medium-sized coastal state developing a five-year sustainable ocean economy roadmap.
Scenario
1Country B is a middle-income coastal state with an ocean economy contributing 4.2% of GDP and employing 380,000 people. The government is developing a sustainable ocean economy roadmap for 2025-2030 that aims to increase the ocean economy’s GDP contribution to 5.5% whilst ensuring fish stocks are rebuilt to sustainable levels and coastal ecosystems are protected. The Ministry of Finance requires quantified evidence that the proposed roadmap maintains natural capital and does not rely on unsustainable resource depletion.
Account compilation
1The National Statistics Office compiled the accounts summarised in Table 3.7.0 below for baseline year 2024. The asset account for aquatic resources records opening biomass of 165,000 tonnes, natural growth of 32,000 tonnes, natural mortality of 13,000 tonnes, net natural change of 19,000 tonnes, actual catch of 32,000 tonnes/yr, and closing stock of 152,000 tonnes. Sustainable yield is 28,000 tonnes/yr, implying depletion of 4,000 tonnes/yr.
2Table 3.7.0: Baseline accounts compiled for Country B (2024)
| Account | Baseline values |
|---|---|
| Ocean economy thematic accounts (TG-2.5) | Ocean GVA = USD 2,100 million (4.2% of GDP); employment = 380,000 FTE. |
| Asset accounts for aquatic resources (TG-3.1) | Closing stock = 152,000 tonnes; catch = 32,000 tonnes/yr; sustainable yield = 28,000 tonnes/yr; depletion = 4,000 tonnes/yr. |
| Ecosystem extent accounts | Mangroves = 1,240 km2; seagrass = 890 km2; coral reefs = 620 km2. |
| Ecosystem condition accounts | Mangrove condition index = 0.68; seagrass condition index = 0.71; coral reef condition index = 0.58 (all relative to reference condition = 1.0). |
| Residual flow accounts (TG-3.4) | Nitrogen loading to coastal waters = 12,400 tonnes/yr; plastic debris flux = 3,200 tonnes/yr. |
Indicator derivation
1From these accounts, the following sustainability indicators were derived for the dashboard:
2Table 3.7.1: Baseline sustainability indicators for Country B (2024)
| Dimension | Indicator | Value | Account source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Economic | Ocean GVA (% of GDP) | 4.2% | Ocean economy accounts |
| Gross ocean GVA (USD million) | 2,100 | Ocean economy accounts | |
| Depletion (fish stocks, USD million) | 12 | Asset accounts (depletion valued at resource rent)34 | |
| Net ocean GVA (USD million) | 2,088 | Economy accounts minus asset depletion | |
| Net ocean GVA (% of GDP) | 4.18% | Adjusted measure | |
| Ocean employment (thousand FTE) | 380 | Labour accounts | |
| Environmental | Fish stock biomass (% of MSY level) | 78% | Asset accounts (closing stock 152,000 t ÷ MSY biomass target 195,000 t)35 |
| Fish stocks at sustainable levels | No (catch 32,000 t > sustainable yield 28,000 t) | Asset accounts | |
| Mangrove extent (km²) | 1,240 | Extent accounts | |
| Mangrove condition index | 0.68 | Condition accounts | |
| Coral reef condition index | 0.58 | Condition accounts | |
| Pollution | Nitrogen loading (tonnes/yr) | 12,400 | Residual flow accounts |
| Marine plastic debris (tonnes/yr) | 3,200 | Residual flow accounts |
Scenario projections
1The sustainable ocean economy roadmap proposes three intervention packages, each with projected effects on economic and environmental indicators. The projections use the accounting identities to ensure internal consistency: changes in fish stock biomass are reconciled with extraction and growth rates, changes in ecosystem extent affect service flows, and changes in condition affect service capacity.
2Table 3.7.2: Scenario projections for 2030 target year
| Indicator | Baseline 2024 | Scenario A: Business as usual | Scenario B: Moderate intervention | Scenario C: Strong conservation | 2030 Target |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ocean GVA (% of GDP) | 4.2% | 4.8% | 5.2% | 5.0% | 5.5% |
| Net ocean GVA (% of GDP) | 4.18% | 4.3% | 5.0% | 4.9% | 5.3% |
| Fish stock biomass (tonnes) | 152,000 | 138,000 | 195,000 | 210,000 | 195,000 |
| Catch (tonnes/yr) | 32,000 | 34,000 | 28,000 | 28,000 | ≤28,000 |
| Depletion (tonnes/yr) | 4,000 | 6,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mangrove extent (km²) | 1,240 | 1,190 | 1,280 | 1,320 | 1,350 |
| Coral condition index | 0.58 | 0.52 | 0.63 | 0.68 | 0.70 |
| Nitrogen loading (tonnes/yr) | 12,400 | 13,800 | 10,200 | 8,500 | 9,000 |
3Scenario A (Business as usual): Continuation of current policies results in increased ocean GVA but continued depletion of fish stocks (depletion rising to 6,000 tonnes/yr), declining mangrove extent (−50 km²), and worsening coral condition. Net ocean GVA grows more slowly than gross GVA due to increased depletion costs. That widening gap indicates unsustainable resource use.
4Scenario B (Moderate intervention): Implementation of catch limits at sustainable yield (28,000 tonnes/yr), mangrove restoration (+40 km²), and wastewater treatment upgrades reducing nitrogen loading by 18%. Ocean GVA reaches 5.2% of GDP, fish stocks recover fully to the MSY biomass target (195,000 tonnes) by 2030, and net ocean GVA growth matches gross growth (no depletion). The “fish stocks at sustainable levels” indicator is achieved under Scenario B: the stock returns to the MSY biomass target, and catch is at or below sustainable yield throughout the projection period36. This scenario meets most 2030 targets.37
5Scenario C (Strong conservation): More aggressive interventions including marine protected area expansion, larger restoration programmes, and stronger pollution controls. Environmental indicators exceed targets (fish stock biomass reaches 210,000 tonnes, above the 195,000 t MSY target), but ocean GVA growth is slightly constrained (5.0% vs 5.5% target) due to spatial allocation of 15% of fishing grounds to no-take MPAs. The additional stock recovery in Scenario C reflects enhanced recruitment from no-take zones and reduced bycatch mortality, projected using a spatial population model.
Note on scenario modelling levels: The accounting-based scenario projections in Scenarios A and B can be implemented using stock identity accounting — opening stock + net natural change − catch = closing stock — and do not require specialist fisheries modelling. The spatial population model referenced in Scenario C requires collaboration with fisheries scientists and is presented for completeness, not as a minimum requirement for compilers. For practitioners who wish to pursue Scenario C-level analysis, see FAO (1999) Guidelines for the routine collection of capture fishery data38 and ICES (2021) stock assessment guidance39.
Dashboard presentation
1The scenario analysis was presented to cabinet in Table 3.7.3, showing the trade-offs between economic growth and environmental outcomes:
2Table 3.7.3: Sustainable ocean economy roadmap dashboard (Country B)
| Indicator | 2024 Baseline | 2030 Target | Scenario B projection | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economic outcomes | ||||
| Ocean GVA (% of GDP) | 4.2% | 5.5% | 5.2% | Near target |
| Net ocean GVA (% of GDP) | 4.18% | 5.3% | 5.0% | Near target |
| Ocean employment (thousand FTE) | 380 | 450 | 440 | On track |
| Environmental outcomes | ||||
| Fish stocks at sustainable levels | No | Yes | Yes | Achieved |
| Fish stock biomass (tonnes) | 152,000 | 195,000 | 195,000 | Achieved |
| Mangrove extent (km²) | 1,240 | 1,350 | 1,280 | On track |
| Coral condition index | 0.58 | 0.70 | 0.63 | On track |
| Pollution reduction | ||||
| Nitrogen loading (tonnes/yr) | 12,400 | 9,000 | 10,200 | On track |
| Plastic debris (tonnes/yr) | 3,200 | 2,000 | 2,400 | On track |
Policy implications
1The analysis demonstrated that:
- 2
Gross GVA overstates sustainability: The gap between gross and net ocean GVA (4.2% vs 4.18% in 2024, widening to 4.8% vs 4.3% under business-as-usual in 2030) reveals that current growth relies on natural capital depletion. This finding, grounded in the 2025 SNA treatment of depletion as a production cost, indicated to the finance ministry that current policies risk unsustainability.
- 3
Catch limits enable rebuilding: Scenario B demonstrates that reducing catch to sustainable yield (28,000 tonnes/yr) allows fish stocks to recover from 152,000 tonnes to the MSY biomass target of 195,000 tonnes over six years, even whilst maintaining a productive fishery. The shift to sustainable catch limits reverses the depletion recorded in asset accounts and eliminates the NDP adjustment. These results indicate that conservation measures can align economic and environmental objectives.
- 4
Restoration investments yield long-term returns: The mangrove restoration component of Scenario B (+40 km² by 2030) costs an estimated USD 15 million over six years but generates coastal protection services valued at USD 480,000/yr (replacement cost basis) and carbon sequestration services valued at USD 160,000/yr. Together, these annual service flows total USD 640,000. The undiscounted breakeven point is approximately year 23 (USD 15,000,000 ÷ USD 640,000/yr ≈ 23.4 years). Practitioners should apply their country’s social discount rate when replicating this analysis. Blue carbon values may increase as carbon prices rise, and any such increase would strengthen the net benefits case over time40. These service flows are recorded in ecosystem service accounts (TG-3.2).
- 5
Pollution controls support ecosystem recovery: The 18% reduction in nitrogen loading under Scenario B (from 12,400 to 10,200 tonnes/yr), achieved through wastewater treatment upgrades costing USD 22 million, improves water quality sufficiently to support coral and seagrass condition improvement. The condition improvements are projected to increase ecosystem service capacity by 8%. That capacity gain yields fishery nursery benefits that partially offset the costs of pollution controls.
6Based on this analysis, the cabinet approved Scenario B as the basis for the sustainable ocean economy roadmap, with specific budget allocations for catch management enforcement, mangrove restoration, and wastewater infrastructure documented in the national budget presentation (TG-1.1 OA and National Budget Processes).
4. Acknowledgements
1This Circular has been approved for public circulation and comment by the GOAP Technical Experts Group in accordance with the Circular Publication Procedure.
2Authors: [To be confirmed]
3Reviewers: [To be confirmed]
5. References
Footnotes
- 1
Global Ocean Accounts Partnership. (2025). Technical Guidance on Ocean Accounting, Circular TG-0.1. ↩
- 2
Fenichel, E.P., et al. (2020). Modifying national accounts for sustainable ocean development. Nature Sustainability, 3, 889-895. ↩
- 3
United Nations. (2025). System of National Accounts 2025, Annex 4, para A4.59. ↩
- 4
United Nations. (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting — Ecosystem Accounting, Chapter 14, paras 14.28-14.32. ↩
- 5
United Nations, et al. (2014). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012: Central Framework, Chapter III. ↩
- 6
Chen, W., et al. (2020). Ecosystem accounting’s potential to support coastal and marine governance. Marine Policy, 112, 103758. ↩
- 7
Gacutan, J., et al. (2021). Marine spatial planning and ocean accounting: Synergistic tools enhancing integration in ocean governance. Marine Policy, 104936. ↩
- 8
Chen, W., et al. (2020). Ecosystem accounting’s potential to support coastal and marine governance. Marine Policy, 112, 103758. ↩
- 9
United Nations. (2025). System of National Accounts 2025, Annex 4, para A4.59. ↩
- 10
United Nations. (2025). System of National Accounts 2025, Chapter 1, para 1.42. ↩
- 11
United Nations. (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting — Ecosystem Accounting, Chapters 7 and 9. ↩
- 12
United Nations, et al. (2014). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012: Central Framework, Chapter III. ↩
- 13
UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. (2021). Protected Planet Report 2020. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN: Cambridge UK and Gland, Switzerland. ↩
- 14
United Nations. (2025). System of National Accounts 2025, Chapter 35, para 35.12. ↩
- 15
United Nations. (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting — Ecosystem Accounting, Chapter 10. ↩
- 16
United Nations. (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting — Ecosystem Accounting, Chapter 10, paras 10.13—10.34. ↩
- 17
This indicator requires primary household survey data rather than standard account compilation. NSOs should note it as supplementary data outside the main accounts pipeline. ↩
- 18
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1, Goal 14. ↩
- 19
United Nations. (2017). Global indicator framework for the Sustainable Development Goals. A/RES/71/313, Annex, Goal 14 indicators. ↩
- 20
Inter-agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators (IAEG-SDGs). (2024). Tier Classification for Global SDG Indicators. United Nations Statistics Division. ↩
- 21
United Nations. (2023). Global Sustainable Development Report 2023, Chapter 3. ↩
- 22
Convention on Biological Diversity. (2022). Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, Targets 3, 5, and 10. ↩
- 23
United Nations. (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting — Ecosystem Accounting, Chapter 13. ↩
- 24
United Nations. (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting — Ecosystem Accounting, para 13.82. ↩
- 25
United Nations, et al. (2014). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012: Central Framework, Chapter III. ↩
- 26
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. (2021). Ocean Accounts: Piloting the SEEA EEA for the Ocean, Chapter 3; United Nations. (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting — Ecosystem Accounting, paras 3.29—3.44. ↩
- 27
United Nations, et al. (2014). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012: Central Framework, Section 5.9. ↩
- 28
United Nations. (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting — Ecosystem Accounting, para 13.88. ↩
- 29
United Nations. (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting — Ecosystem Accounting, Section 13.4. ↩
- 30
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. (2021). Ocean Accounts: Piloting the SEEA EEA for the Ocean, Chapter 3. ↩
- 31
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. (2021). Ocean Accounts: Piloting the SEEA EEA for the Ocean, Chapter 4. ↩
- 32
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. (2021). Ocean Accounts: Piloting the SEEA EEA for the Ocean, Vietnam case study. ↩
- 33
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. (2021). Ocean Accounts: Piloting the SEEA EEA for the Ocean, country scoping reports. ↩
- 34
Depletion valued at illustrative resource rent of USD 3,000/tonne for a mixed demersal/pelagic fishery (4,000 t × USD 3,000/t = USD 12 million). The resource rent is derived from an assumed ex-vessel price of approximately USD 4,500/t and a fishing cost ratio of ~33%, yielding a rent margin of ~USD 3,000/t. The species mix is illustrative of a mid-value mixed fishery. Compilers should derive resource rent from national fisheries price and cost data. See SEEA CF Section 5.9.3 for the resource rent valuation method and TG-3.1 Asset Accounts and TG-1.1 OA and National Budget Processes for detailed methodology. This figure is illustrative only. ↩
- 35
Sustainability percentage = closing stock (152,000 t) ÷ MSY biomass target (195,000 t). Closing-stock convention is applied consistently in Table 3.7.2. The MSY biomass target of 195,000 t is an illustrative value consistent with the Schaefer model relationship B_MSY ≈ K/2, where K (carrying capacity) is estimated at approximately 390,000 t based on the stock’s historical abundance data in this synthetic example. ↩
- 36
“Fish stocks at sustainable levels” is triggered by the stock reaching or exceeding the MSY biomass target. Under Scenario B, the biomass projection reaches 195,000 t by 2030, satisfying this criterion. See FAO (2005) Reference points for fisheries management for the biological rationale for using B_MSY as a sustainability threshold. ↩
- 37
Scenario B density-dependent growth assumption. The baseline net natural change of 19,000 t/yr is measured at the current depleted stock level (closing stock 152,000 t, approximately 78% of B_MSY). The Scenario B trajectory to 195,000 t by 2030 is only achievable if net natural change increases as the stock rebuilds — a standard property of surplus production models (e.g., Schaefer), in which productivity peaks near B_MSY. Under this assumption, net natural change averages approximately 35,000 t/yr during the six-year rebuilding period (compared to the baseline 19,000 t/yr at current depletion level). This is consistent with the Schaefer surplus production model at this stock level. The annual stock identity illustrates the trajectory: Year 1 (2025): 152,000 + ~32,000 − 28,000 = ~156,000 t. By Year 6 (2030), the stock reaches 195,000 t with growth averaging ~35,000 t/yr. Compilers who apply a simple fixed net natural change (19,000 t/yr) will find the Scenario B endpoint unreachable. The density-dependent assumption should be made explicit in the planning documentation. See FAO (2005) Reference points for fisheries management for the biological rationale. ↩
- 38
FAO. (1999). Guidelines for the routine collection of capture fishery data. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 382. The Scenario B stock identity projections assume density-dependent growth: net natural change rises as the stock rebuilds toward B_MSY (see footnote 37). ↩
- 39
ICES. (2021). Technical Guidelines: Fisheries Management Reference Points for Category 1 and 2 Stocks. ICES Advice 2021, DOI: 10.17895/ices.advice.7891. ↩
- 40
HM Treasury. (2022). The Green Book: Central Government Guidance on Appraisal and Evaluation. ISBN 9781528622295. Provides social discount rate guidance using the Social Time Preference Rate (STPR) approach. ↩