OA and Fisheries Management

TG-1.5 Section 1: Using Ocean Accounts in Decision-Making Applied Draft TG-1.5 Applied Draft Section 1 Section 1: Using Ocean Accounts in Decision-Making SNA SNA 2025 MEA multilateral environmental agreement overfished overfishing stock status condition indicator normalisation pH

Circular ID	TG-1.5
Version	0.8.2
Badge	Applied
Status	Draft
Last Updated	September 2026

Circular TG-1.5 · Section 1: Using Ocean Accounts in Decision-Making · 1 September 2026

OA and Fisheries Management

Provides guidance on using Ocean Accounts to inform fisheries management decisions.

Version

0.8.2

Status

Draft

Stability

Applied

Last updated

September 2026

Responsible officer

Dr Jordan Gacutan

Drafting

AI-assisted drafting from GOAP Secretariat source materials; source list to be published at the close of consultation.

Contents

1. 1. Outcome
2. 2. Requirements
3. 3. Guidance Material
   1. 3.1 How the fishery enters the accounts
   2. 3.2 Economic performance indicators
   3. 3.3 Sustainability Indicators
   4. 3.4 Practical Applications
   5. 3.5 Where the data come from, and what that means for a decision
4. 4. Acknowledgements
5. 5. References

About this circular

Recommended citation

OA and Fisheries Management (2026) (GOAP Technical Guidance on Ocean Accounting, TG-1.5, v0.8.2). GOAP Secretariat. https://guidance.oceanaccounts.org/circulars/section-1/1-5-fisheries-management/

© 2026 Global Ocean Accounts Partnership. Licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0.

Provides guidance on using Ocean Accounts to inform fisheries management decisions.

Version

0.8.2

Status

Draft

Stability

Applied

Last updated

September 2026

Responsible officer

Dr Jordan Gacutan

Drafting

AI-assisted drafting from GOAP Secretariat source materials; source list to be published at the close of consultation.

Read first

TG-0.1 General Introduction to Ocean Accounts

After this circular

TG-6.7 Fisheries Accounting: Integrating Stock Assessment

Standards this circular implements

• Implements SNA 2025: SNA 2025 Annex 4, para A4.59 (depletion as a cost of production). Fisheries net-income indicators treat depletion of wild stocks alongside depreciation; countries still on SNA 2008 record the same figures as supplementary entries. — §3.3
• Implements SEEA Central Framework: SEEA CF paras 5.441–5.452 (resource rent) and paras 4.178–4.180 (permits to use environmental assets). Quota decisions monetise the physical aquatic-resource account at unit resource rent, using ITQ prices only as a cross-check, not as the sole stock value. — §3.4

Download PDF Download HTML Word (DOCX) Present Cite Build a reading path to here

This draft is open for comment

Select any sentence to comment on it — the form opens with the passage already filled in, and you need no account. Using a keyboard, press Tab to a paragraph marker and Enter. Comments close Friday 13 November 2026.

How to comment, what we do with it, and what we publish

1. Outcome

1This Circular sets out how Ocean Accounts inform fisheries management decisions: which account entries and indicators bear on a quota decision, how to read them, and what the data behind them will and will not support. Compilation of the aquatic resource accounts is treated in TG-3.1 Asset Accounts and TG-6.7 Fisheries Accounting: Integrating Stock Assessment, and the data sources in Section 4, to which this Circular refers rather than restating.

2Decision use cases. Four management functions are supported. Quota setting compares total removals against sustainable yield at current biomass, and stock biomass against B_MSY, to establish whether depletion is occurring and what TAC response follows; the decision framework is Table 3.4.1 and is worked through in Section 3.4.2. MSY verification tests whether a management plan is achieving its stated objective of maintaining stocks at levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield. Subsidy reform links government support to stock status, revealing whether support is contributing to overcapacity, in line with SDG 14.6. SDG 14.4.1 reporting draws directly on the asset accounts for the proportion of stocks within biologically sustainable levels.

3What a manager needs to know about the accounts. Section 3.1 sets out four points that determine how the numbers should be read: wild capture and aquaculture are different assets accounted differently; natural mortality is not depletion; the stock assessment data tier limits what the accounts can support, so that at the lowest tier they give a direction of travel and not an absolute biomass; and shared stocks are attributed rather than observed. Section 3.5 adds the two source limitations that most often change a conclusion — unestimated IUU catch, and uncounted subsistence and recreational removals — both of which make a depletion figure a lower bound.

4These use cases connect to the fiscal framing in TG-1.1 OA and National Budget Processes, where fisheries depletion enters natural capital budgeting.

2. Requirements

• 1TG-0.1 General Introduction

2Related Circulars:

• 3TG-3.1 Asset Accounts — General methodology for physical and monetary asset accounts
• 4TG-3.2 Flows from Environment to Economy — Treatment of fish harvest as natural resource input
• 5TG-3.9 Aquaculture — Distinguishing cultivated from natural aquatic resources
• 6TG-6.7 Fisheries Accounting: Integrating Stock Assessment — Detailed thematic methodology for linking stock assessment to accounts

7Readers approaching Section 1 for the first time should begin with TG-1.0 Ocean Accounting and the Blue/Ocean Economy, the framing circular for the section, which sets out the ocean economy terminology used throughout, what an ocean account can and cannot certify about a blue economy claim, and the map from a policy question to the circular that answers it. It is recommended reading, not a prerequisite.

3. Guidance Material

3.1 How the fishery enters the accounts

1A fisheries manager does not compile the aquatic resource accounts, but needs to know enough about their construction to interpret and defend the numbers they produce. Four points carry most of that weight; each is specified in full elsewhere.

2Wild capture and aquaculture are different assets, accounted differently. Natural aquatic resources — wild stocks whose growth and regeneration occur without direct management — are non-produced biological assets outside the SNA production boundary until harvest, and are therefore subject to depletion accounting when extraction exceeds sustainable yield. Cultivated resources in aquaculture facilities are inside the production boundary and are not. The classification is set out in TG-3.1 Asset Accounts Section 3.4.1, with aquaculture in TG-3.9. A manager arguing that a fishery is being drawn down is making a claim about the first category only.

3The physical asset account separates extraction from everything else. Opening stock, natural growth, gross catch, natural mortality, other volume changes and closing stock are recorded separately (TG-3.1 Section 3.4.1). Only extraction flows enter the depletion test: natural mortality is not depletion, however large. Confusing the two is the most common error in reading a fisheries asset account, and it materially overstates the case for intervention.

4Stock assessment supplies the account entries, and its data tier limits what can be said. The correspondence between assessment outputs and account entries — biomass to opening and closing stock, recruitment to natural growth, natural mortality to normal losses, fishing mortality to extraction, MSY to sustainable yield, retrospective revisions to reappraisals — is set out in TG-6.7 Fisheries Accounting: Integrating Stock Assessment Sections 3.1 to 3.3, together with the tiered approach for countries without full age-structured assessments. The practical consequence for management is in Section 3.4.1 below: at the lowest data tier the accounts support a direction of travel but not an absolute biomass, and a quota decision has to be framed accordingly.

5Shared stocks are attributed, not observed. Where a stock migrates in and out of the EEZ, biomass is attributed on the country’s agreed RFMO allocation share, or in its absence on the estimated stock fraction present at a mid-year survey date, with the method documented and the double-counting risk flagged (TG-3.1 Section 3.4.1; TG-4.12 Transboundary Data Sharing). RFMO assessment outputs — WCPFC, IOTC, CCSBT in the Asia-Pacific — are the primary input where domestic assessments do not exist. A national quota argument that rests on an attributed share is only as strong as the allocation agreement behind it.

6Species are classified using FAO ASFIS and ISCAAP (TG-3.1 Section 3.4.1; TG-4.10 Extending Fisheries Statistics), which is what makes national accounts comparable with FAO series and with neighbouring states.

3.2 Economic performance indicators

1The economic indicators for the fisheries sector — gross output, intermediate consumption, gross value added, net value added after depreciation and depletion, employment, compensation of employees, and trade in fishery products — are defined and compiled under TG-2.5 Structure and Function of the Ocean Economy and TG-3.3 Economic Activity Relevant to the Ocean. Three fisheries-specific points determine whether those indicators answer a management question.

2Disaggregation is what makes them useful. A single sector GVA figure supports almost no management decision. The disaggregations that do are: by type of fishing (commercial, artisanal and small-scale, recreational, subsistence); by gear type; by target species or stock; by fishing ground; and by enterprise size. A management measure almost always falls on one of these groups and not the others, and the distributional consequence is the question a minister will ask.

3Small-scale fisheries are systematically undercounted. Small-scale operations employ an estimated 90 per cent of the world’s capture fishers and fish workers, yet are routinely missed by labour force surveys because the work is informal, seasonal or part-time.¹ Where the accounts are compiled from standard surveys alone, the employment figure will understate the sector, and it will understate it precisely in the group most exposed to a quota reduction. Coverage methods — fisheries modules in household surveys, landing-site frame surveys, key-informant validation, and proxy estimation from vessel registries — are set out in TG-4.2 Survey Methods and TG-4.10. A manager should establish which were used before citing an employment number in a distributional argument.

4National resource and national fleet are different questions. Catches from national aquatic resources regardless of who takes them, and catches by national fishing operations regardless of where they fish, are distinct measures. The first tracks the national asset; the second tracks the national industry. Stock rebuilding arguments turn on the first, industry adjustment arguments on the second, and conflating them produces a case that does not hold.

3.3 Sustainability Indicators

3.3.1 Stock Status Indicators

1Physical asset accounts provide the foundation for key stock status indicators:

2Stock biomass relative to reference points: Comparing current estimated biomass (B) to biological reference points such as:

• 3B_MSY: Biomass at which MSY is achieved
• 4B_0: Unfished (virgin) biomass
• 5B_lim: Limit reference point below which recruitment is impaired

6Fishing mortality relative to reference points: Comparing current fishing mortality rate (F) to:

• 7F_MSY: Fishing mortality that produces MSY
• 8F_0.1: Precautionary proxy for F_MSY
• 9F_lim: Limit above which stock decline is expected

10Proportion of stocks within biologically sustainable levels: SDG indicator 14.4.1 measures the percentage of fish stocks that are within biologically sustainable levels, defined as stocks with abundance at or above the level that can produce MSY².

3.3.2 Depletion-Adjusted Income Measures

1The 2025 SNA now treats depletion of natural resources as a cost of production alongside depreciation, which gives greater prominence to net income measures that account for the using up of natural capital (SNA 2025 Annex 4, para A4.59)³. Countries that have not yet transitioned to SNA 2025 can compile depletion-adjusted income measures as supplementary or satellite account entries consistent with SNA 2008. The SEEA Central Framework provides a version-neutral basis for these calculations (SEEA CF Section 5.8). That basis allows countries at any stage of SNA transition to produce depletion-adjusted indicators. For fisheries, this means:

2Net fishing income: Gross value added from fishing less the value of depletion. This measure reflects the genuine contribution of fisheries to national income after accounting for any reduction in the fish stock asset.

3Sustainable net income: Income that could be earned indefinitely if harvesting were limited to sustainable yield levels. Operationally, sustainable net income can be approximated as: SNI = GVA × (SY / gross catch), where SY is the sustainable yield at current biomass and gross catch is actual extraction for the period. This scaling approach assumes that costs and revenues are proportional to catch volume. Where unit cost data are available, a more precise formulation is: SNI = SY × (average price per tonne − average cost per tonne). For a numerical illustration, see the companion monetary example in Step 1b of Section 3.4.2. More detailed methodology, including treatment of multi-species fisheries and long-run price assumptions, is covered in TG-6.7 Fisheries Accounting: Integrating Stock Assessment.

4When depletion occurs (extraction exceeds sustainable yield), the difference between gross income and sustainable net income represents income generated by depleting capital rather than genuine sustainable returns.

3.3.3 SDG 14 Alignment

1Ocean Accounts support monitoring of several SDG 14 targets related to fisheries⁴:

2SDG 14.4: “By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices and implement science-based management plans, in order to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible, at least to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield as determined by their biological characteristics.”⁵

• 3Indicator 14.4.1: Proportion of fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels
• 4Asset accounts directly provide data on stock status relative to MSY benchmarks. SDG 14.4.1 uses an unweighted stock-count method: each assessed stock is counted equally, and the indicator equals the number of stocks at or above B_MSY divided by the total number of assessed stocks. Where a country’s fisheries data are already disaggregated by species or stock in pre-existing fisheries data systems, those disaggregated stock records feed directly into the count without further aggregation. Compilers should follow FAO’s indicator methodology note (FAO 2020, footnote 34) for official SDG reporting. Alternative weightings by catch volume or landed value may be informative for national monitoring purposes but should not replace the FAO unweighted method for official SDG submissions.

5SDG 14.6: “By 2020, prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and refrain from introducing new such subsidies.”

• 6Environmental subsidy accounts can track government support to the fisheries sector
• 7Analysis can assess whether subsidies enhance or undermine sustainability

8SDG 14.7: “By 2030, increase the economic benefits to small island developing States and least developed countries from the sustainable use of marine resources, including through sustainable management of fisheries, aquaculture and tourism.”

• 9Indicator 14.7.1: Sustainable fisheries as a proportion of GDP in small island developing States, least developed countries and all countries
• 10Directly derived from economic accounts measuring fisheries GVA

11SDG 14.b: “Provide access for small-scale artisanal fishers to marine resources and markets.”

• 12Indicator 14.b.1: Degree of application of a legal/regulatory/policy/institutional framework which recognizes and protects access rights for small-scale fisheries
• 13Disaggregated accounts can track the distribution of fisheries benefits across scales of operation

3.4 Practical Applications

3.4.1 Informing Total Allowable Catch Decisions

1Fisheries managers commonly set Total Allowable Catch (TAC) limits based on biological stock assessments. Ocean Accounts enhance this process by:

• 2Providing a systematic framework for recording and updating stock information
• 3Enabling comparison of catch levels against sustainable yield benchmarks
• 4Tracking the cumulative impact of harvesting decisions on stock levels over time
• 5Integrating economic information to assess the costs and benefits of different TAC options⁶

6The following decision framework illustrates how data from physical asset accounts and stock assessments can be combined to guide TAC decisions. By cross-referencing the current stock status (expressed as the ratio of biomass to the biomass at maximum sustainable yield, B/B_MSY) with recorded catch relative to sustainable yield (SY), managers can identify the appropriate management response. Figure 1.5.1 presents this as a two-by-two matrix. Each combination of stock status and catch level maps to one of four management outcomes and routes to its corresponding physical- and monetary-asset account entries.

Figure 1.5.1 Stock status crossed with catch relative to sustainable yield yields four management outcomes linked to physical and monetary asset entries. [a] Cell shade = intervention urgency (ordinal, not quantitative). [b] Dashed edge = monitoring feedback. Source: TG-1.5 draft v6, Section 3.5, Table 3.5.1 (four-outcome stock × catch matrix). Adapted from: SEEA EA 2024 §6.32-6.45 (fisheries asset accounts); FAO SOFIA 2024 stock-status reporting categories.

7Table 3.4.1: Sustainable yield decision framework for fisheries management

Stock Status (B/B_MSY)	Catch Relative to SY	Depletion Recorded	Management Implication
>= 1.0 (healthy)	Catch <= SY	No	Maintain current TAC
>= 1.0 (healthy)	Catch > SY	Yes	Reduce TAC
< 1.0 (depleted)	Catch <= current SY	No	Stock stabilises at current level; active rebuilding requires catch below SY
< 1.0 (depleted)	Catch > current SY	Yes	Urgent TAC reduction

8This decision matrix translates accounting outputs into management guidance. When a stock is healthy (B >= B_MSY) and catch does not exceed sustainable yield, no depletion is recorded and the current TAC can be maintained. When catch exceeds sustainable yield even for a healthy stock, depletion is recorded in the asset account, and the TAC should be reduced to prevent the stock from falling below its MSY benchmark. For depleted stocks, even catch levels at the current (reduced) sustainable yield merely stabilise the stock at its depleted level rather than rebuilding it. Active rebuilding requires catch below sustainable yield. Catch exceeding sustainable yield for a depleted stock represents the most urgent case for TAC reduction. Managers should interpret these categories together with the precautionary reference points set out in TG-6.7 Section 3.1, and with due regard for uncertainty in stock assessment estimates⁷. Table 3.4.1 is the normative statement of this decision framework for the publication; TG-6.7 Section 3.7 records the corresponding depletion-recording rule from the compiler’s side.

9Estimating current SY for depleted stocks: For the two depleted rows in Table 3.4.1 (B/B_MSY < 1.0), “current SY” is the sustainable yield at the stock’s actual (reduced) biomass, which is lower than MSY. The method depends on the data tier in use, and is specified in TG-6.7 Sections 3.1 and 3.3. At the lowest tier only a linear approximation is available, SY_current = MSY × (B/B_MSY), which is indicative only and, below B_MSY, gives a lower yield than the symmetric Schaefer curve (MSY × x(2 − x), with x = B/B_MSY); at higher tiers the assessment model supplies a current-biomass-conditional yield estimate directly and the approximation should not be substituted for it. The management consequence is that a quota set at the lowest tier carries a wider error band than the single number implies, and should be paired with a more conservative buffer.

3.4.2 Worked Example: Using Asset Account Data to Inform Quota Decisions

1This worked example demonstrates how a fisheries management agency can use asset account data to assess stock status and adjust Total Allowable Catch quotas, using synthetic data for a hypothetical coastal demersal fishery.

2Scenario description: The Coastal Demersal Fishery Management Authority oversees a commercially important snapper species within the national EEZ. The fishery is managed using annual TAC quotas allocated through an Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) system. Stock assessment scientists conduct annual assessments using age-structured models calibrated to catch data, fishery-independent trawl surveys, and commercial CPUE indices. The authority compiles physical asset accounts for the snapper stock, integrated with the stock assessment process.

3Step 1: Compile physical asset account

4The authority compiled the following physical asset account for snapper stock for the accounting year 2024, based on the 2024 stock assessment:

Account Entry	Value (tonnes)	Data Source
Opening stock (1 Jan 2024)	42,900	Stock assessment biomass estimate
Additions to stock
Natural growth (recruitment + growth)	14,300	Stock assessment recruitment and growth models
Upward reappraisals	0	No model revisions this year
Total additions	14,300
Reductions in stock
Gross catch (commercial fisheries)	10,500	Verified landing records + discard estimates
Normal losses (natural mortality)	5,800	Stock assessment natural mortality estimate
Catastrophic losses	0	No mass mortality events recorded
Uncompensated seizure (IUU fishing)	300	Surveillance-based IUU estimate
Total reductions	16,600
Closing stock (31 Dec 2024)	40,600	Stock assessment biomass estimate
Derived measures
Sustainable yield at current biomass	8,500	Estimated from surplus production curve at B = 40,600t
B_MSY (reference biomass)	55,000	Stock assessment MSY reference point
B/B_MSY ratio	0.74	40,600 / 55,000
Total removals (gross catch + IUU)	10,800	10,500 + 300
Depletion (total removals - sustainable yield)	2,300	10,800 - 8,500

5Note: Sustainable yield is stock-dependent and varies with biomass. At the current depleted biomass of 40,600 tonnes (B/B_MSY = 0.74), the estimated sustainable yield of 8,500 tonnes represents the harvestable surplus above natural mortality: the quantity that can be removed by human harvest without reducing stock biomass below its current level. Depletion is therefore measured as total removals (gross catch plus all IUU extraction, whether by residents or non-residents) minus that harvestable surplus: 10,800 - 8,500 = 2,300 tonnes. Natural mortality of 5,800 tonnes is recorded separately in the reductions block as a stock-biological process distinct from the harvest-based depletion test, and it does not enter the depletion calculation. As the stock rebuilds toward B_MSY, sustainable yield will increase toward its maximum.

6Step 1b: Compile monetary asset account

7Using a unit resource rent approach (SEEA CF paras 5.441-5.452), the authority monetises the physical account. All figures are illustrative.

Monetary Account Entry	Basis	Value (USD)
Average landed price	USD 1,200/tonne	—
Average extraction cost (incl. normal profit)	USD 800/tonne	—
Unit resource rent	1,200 − 800	USD 400/tonne
Opening stock value	42,900t × USD 400	USD 17,160,000
Closing stock value	40,600t × USD 400	USD 16,240,000
Depletion value	2,300t × USD 400	USD 920,000
Resource rent from fishing	10,500t × USD 400	USD 4,200,000
Net fishing income (resource rent − depletion)	4,200,000 − 920,000	USD 3,280,000
Sustainable net income (SY × unit resource rent)	8,500t × USD 400	USD 3,400,000

8The depletion value of USD 920,000 represents stock capital eroded in 2024. Net fishing income of USD 3,280,000 is the resource rent that remains after accounting for this capital drawdown. These monetary measures provide the inputs for depletion-adjusted GDP as described in Section 3.3.2.

9Step 2: Assess stock status against decision framework

10The authority applies the decision framework from Table 3.4.1:

• 11Stock status: B/B_MSY = 0.74, indicating the stock is below MSY benchmark (depleted)
• 12Catch relative to sustainable yield: Total removals (10,800) > sustainable yield (8,500), so depletion is recorded (2,300 tonnes)
• 13Decision category: ”< 1.0 (depleted)” AND “Catch > current SY” → Urgent TAC reduction

14Step 3: Calculate TAC adjustment

15The management authority determines that the TAC should be reduced to allow stock rebuilding. Two scenarios are considered:

16Scenario A: Reduce catch to current sustainable yield level

• 17Set TAC for 2025 at 8,500 tonnes (equal to current sustainable yield at present biomass)
• 18This prevents further depletion but does not actively rebuild the stock
• 19At this catch level, stock biomass would stabilise near the current level (approximately 40,600 tonnes), remaining below B_MSY

20Scenario B: Reduce catch below sustainable yield to enable rebuilding

• 21Set TAC for 2025 at 7,000 tonnes (below sustainable yield by 1,500 tonnes)
• 22Stock expected to increase by approximately 1,500 tonnes per year
• 23Rebuilding target: return to B_MSY (55,000 tonnes) within 10 years
• 24Required annual rebuilding increment: (55,000 - 40,600) / 10 = 1,440 tonnes/year
• 25TAC of 7,000 tonnes achieves this rebuilding trajectory

26The authority selects Scenario B, setting the 2025 TAC at 7,000 tonnes, representing a 33% reduction from 2024 gross catch.

27Step 4: Communicate decision using asset account framework

28The authority publishes the decision with the following justification, grounded in asset accounting concepts:

“The 2024 physical asset account for snapper stock records closing biomass of 40,600 tonnes, 26% below the B_MSY reference level of 55,000 tonnes. Total removals of 10,800 tonnes (gross catch 10,500 plus IUU 300) exceeded sustainable yield of 8,500 tonnes, resulting in depletion of 2,300 tonnes of stock capital. To reverse this trajectory and rebuild the stock asset to sustainable levels within 10 years, the 2025 Total Allowable Catch is set at 7,000 tonnes. This reduction allows net stock growth of approximately 1,500 tonnes per year. Continued monitoring through annual asset accounts will track rebuilding progress, and the TAC will be adjusted as the stock approaches the MSY target.”

29Step 5: Monitor rebuilding through subsequent accounts

30Monitoring actions for each assessment tier are set out in Table 3.4.1.

3.4.3 Evaluating Fisheries Subsidies

1Governments provide various forms of support to fisheries, including fuel subsidies and vessel construction programmes. Ocean Accounts enable systematic assessment of:

• 2The magnitude and composition of fisheries subsidies
• 3Whether subsidies enhance capacity (potentially harmful) or improve sustainability (beneficial)
• 4The distributional effects of subsidies across different types of fishing operations
• 5Alignment with international commitments under SDG 14.6 and WTO fisheries subsidies disciplines⁸

3.4.4 Assessing Recovery Programs

1For depleted stocks, recovery programmes aim to rebuild populations to sustainable levels. Ocean Accounts support:

• 2Baseline measurement of stock status at programme initiation
• 3Tracking of stock recovery through periodic asset accounts
• 4Assessment of economic impacts during rebuilding periods (short-term costs)
• 5Evaluation of long-term benefits from restored sustainable harvesting⁹

3.4.5 Quota Valuation and Management

1Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) are an increasingly common approach to fisheries management. When quotas are freely traded, their market prices can inform the valuation of fish stocks¹⁰. Ocean Accounts support:

• 2Recording quota values as assets (permits to use environmental assets under SEEA CF para 4.178)
• 3Tracking changes in quota values over time
• 4Distinguishing between the value of quotas and the value of underlying fish stocks
• 5Assessing the equity implications of quota allocation systems

6When using ITQ market prices to estimate the value of fish stock assets, compilers should be aware that quota prices may not fully reflect the underlying resource value. Quota markets are often thin (few transactions), geographically segmented, and subject to regulatory constraints on ownership concentration and foreign participation that can distort prices. In addition, quota prices reflect private expectations of future harvesting returns, which may diverge from the social value of the resource. Where quota markets exist, their prices can serve as a useful cross-check against net present value estimates derived from resource rent approaches. The primary reference for ITQ treatment as environmental assets is SEEA CF paras 4.178-4.180, which establish the asset classification for permits to use environmental assets. The valuation method (resource rent and net present value approaches) is provided in SEEA CF paras 5.441-5.452. Quota prices should not be treated as the sole basis for monetary asset valuation without careful assessment of market conditions¹¹.

3.4.6 Climate Change Adaptation

1Climate change is affecting fish stock distribution, productivity, and sustainable yield levels. Ocean Accounts can support climate adaptation by:

• 2Tracking shifts in stock distribution across spatial accounting units
• 3Monitoring changes in condition indicators that may signal climate impacts
• 4Adjusting sustainable yield estimates to account for changing environmental conditions
• 5Informing adaptive management responses to climate-driven changes¹²

3.4.7 Community-level Fishery Accounting

1The ocean accounting framework can be applied at both national and community scale to capture the economic contributions of small-scale and subsistence fishing that are often missed in standard economic surveys. The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) developed survey tools and toolkits examining subsistence and recreational supply of ocean-related natural inputs relevant to small-scale fisheries, with a focus on understanding how coastal communities depend on and contribute to ocean resources¹³. In a complementary effort, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) undertook community-level fisheries accounting work in Baja California, Mexico. That work demonstrated that accounting principles derived from the SEEA Central Framework and Ocean Accounts methodology could be operationalised at local scales to inform cooperative fisheries management.

2These initiatives illustrated that structured accounting approaches can render visible the economic value of artisanal and subsistence catches: value that conventional national accounts frequently undercount or omit entirely. By capturing household-level resource flows and linking them to ecosystem condition indicators, community-scale accounts provide a bridge between national statistical frameworks and local management needs. The IIED/EDF framework (2015-2019) remains the most recent published methodology at the time of writing, and no formal superseding guidance has been published.

Case illustration: Community Fishery Accounts in Baja California (2015—2019)

Work by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) on survey methodologies and toolkits for small-scale fisheries, together with efforts by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) beginning in 2015 in Baja California, Mexico, demonstrated that ocean accounting frameworks can be applied at the community scale. The EDF programme compiled fishery accounts for remote fishing villages, capturing the economic contributions of small-scale and subsistence fishing that are typically missed in standard economic surveys. These efforts highlight the potential for community-level accounts to complement national-level compilations, particularly for capturing non-market and subsistence ocean economy contributions¹⁴.

3.5 Where the data come from, and what that means for a decision

1Fisheries account data sources — catch and landing statistics, stock assessment reports, vessel and licence registries, economic and employment surveys, trade statistics — and the intergovernmental series that complement them are set out in TG-4.10 Extending Fisheries Statistics for Ecosystem-Based Management Section 3.8 and TG-4.3 Administrative Data Sources. Two source limitations change what a manager can conclude, and should be established before a decision rests on the numbers.

2Reported landings are not total removals. Illegal, unreported and unregulated catch sits outside the reported series, and the accounting treatment differs by who takes it: illegal catch by residents is still production by the national industry and belongs in gross catch, whilst illegal catch by non-residents is recorded as an uncompensated seizure — a transfer of national natural capital without compensation. Both enter total removals and therefore the depletion test, but only the first enters the production account. Estimation methods and their uncertainty are covered in TG-4.10 Section 3.8.4. Where no IUU estimate exists, a depletion figure computed from reported landings alone is a lower bound, and a quota set from it will be too generous by an unknown margin.

3Subsistence and recreational catch are often the missing block. Both remove fish from the stock and both belong in the accounts, yet neither appears in commercial landing records. In several Pacific Island States subsistence and artisanal catch may equal or exceed commercial catch by volume whilst remaining largely unreported. A stock assessment and a quota built on the commercial series alone will misstate total removals in exactly those fisheries where food security is the binding consideration. Coverage approaches — benchmark landing-site surveys, fisheries modules in household income and expenditure surveys, food balance sheet cross-checks — are in TG-4.10 and TG-4.2 Survey Methods.

4In both cases the decision-relevant question is not how the estimate is made but whether one exists at all, and what the accounts assume where it does not.

4. Acknowledgements

1Authors: [To be confirmed]

2Reviewers: [To be confirmed]

5. References

Footnotes

1. 1

   FAO. (2015). Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication. Rome; World Bank. (2012). Hidden Harvest: The Global Contribution of Capture Fisheries. Washington, DC. ↩

2. 2

   FAO. (2020). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Indicator 14.4.1 methodology. Rome. ↩

3. 3

   United Nations. (2025). SNA 2025. Annex 4, Para A4.59. ↩

4. 4

   United Nations. (2015). 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Goal 14 targets and indicators. ↩

5. 5

   United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1. Target 14.4. ↩

6. 6

   Fenichel, E.P., et al. (2020). Modifying national accounts for sustainable ocean development. Nature Sustainability, 3, 889-895. ↩

7. 7

   Adapted from the SEEA Central Framework depletion accounting methodology (SEEA CF para 5.431-5.432) and standard fisheries management reference point framework. See also: Punt, A.E., et al. (2016). Management strategy evaluation: best practices. Fish and Fisheries, 17(2), 303-334. ↩

8. 8

   Sumaila, U.R., et al. (2019). Updated estimates and analysis of global fisheries subsidies. Marine Policy, 109, 103695. ↩

9. 9

   Hilborn, R. & Ovando, D. (2014). Reflections on the success of traditional fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71(5), 1040-1046. ↩

10. 10

    United Nations et al. (2014). SEEA Central Framework. Para 5.444-5.452. ↩

11. 11

    Newell, R.G., et al. (2005). Fishing quota markets. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 49(3), 437-462; Arnason, R. (2012). Property rights in fisheries: how much can Individual Transferable Quotas accomplish? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 6(2), 217-236. ↩

12. 12

    Cheung, W.W.L., et al. (2010). Large-scale redistribution of maximum fisheries catch potential in the global ocean under climate change. Global Change Biology, 16(1), 24-35. ↩

13. 13

    IIED & EDF. (2018). Community-level fisheries accounting: survey tools and approaches for small-scale fisheries in Baja California, Mexico. International Institute for Environment and Development, London; Environmental Defense Fund, New York. ↩

14. 14

    IIED. (2019). Small-scale fisheries and the ocean economy. IIED Issue Paper. London; EDF. (2017). Community fishery accounts for Baja California fishing villages: methodology and findings. Environmental Defense Fund, New York. ↩

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.

Is the guidance clear as written?

Could a compiler in your office follow it without asking us what it means?

Clear Mostly clear Ambiguous in places

Could your office apply this with the data it has?

We would rather know that a method is out of reach than publish one nobody can use.

Yes With difficulty No Not applicable to us

Does it sit correctly against the standards and your national practice?

SEEA, the SNA, and whatever your own accounts already do.

Aligned Partly It departs

In your own words (all optional)

Where does it depart from the standards or from your practice? Anything essential missing? Other remarks on this circular as a whole

About you

Submit anonymously

Full name * Email * Organisation

Country / region I would like my contribution recognised in the consultation record

Leave this ticked and your name and organisation appear in the list of consultation respondents. How contributors are named.

I understand my review may be published in the consultation record, that my email address is never published, and that my review is never published beside my name. *

Submit review

Cite this circular

OA and Fisheries Management (2026) (GOAP Technical Guidance on Ocean Accounting, TG-1.5, v0.8.2). GOAP Secretariat. https://guidance.oceanaccounts.org/circulars/section-1/1-5-fisheries-management/

BibTeX

@techreport{goap_tg_1_5_2026,
  title = {OA and Fisheries Management},
  institution = {Global Ocean Accounts Partnership Secretariat},
  series = {GOAP Technical Guidance on Ocean Accounting},
  number = {TG-1.5},
  year = {2026},
  version = {0.8.2},
  url = {https://guidance.oceanaccounts.org/circulars/section-1/1-5-fisheries-management/}
}

© 2026 Global Ocean Accounts Partnership. Licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0. Consultation drafts are not adopted GOAP guidance.