OA and Environmental Impact Assessment

TG-1.6 Section 1: Using Ocean Accounts in Decision-Making Applied Draft

Circular ID	TG-1.6
Version	9.0
Badge	Applied
Status	Draft
Last Updated	May 2026

1. Outcome

1This Circular provides guidance on using Ocean Accounts to support environmental impact assessment (EIA) and strategic environmental assessment (SEA) processes in marine and coastal contexts. Environmental impact assessment is a procedural requirement in most jurisdictions for proposed developments that may significantly affect the environment, whilst strategic environmental assessment applies these principles at the level of policies, plans, and programmes. Effective EIA requires baseline data on environmental conditions, methods for predicting and evaluating potential impacts, and frameworks for assessing cumulative effects over time. Ocean Accounts, grounded in the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA), provide structured information systems that directly support these assessment requirements.

2Decision use cases supported by this integration include: EIA baseline establishment from condition accounts (Section 3.1), cumulative impact assessment using time series of extent and residual flow accounts (Section 3.2), ecosystem service valuation for impact quantification (Section 3.3), damage cost estimation for ecosystem degradation (Section 3.5), and compensatory mitigation and offset calculation (Section 3.7). These applications connect Ocean Accounts to the EIA screening, scoping, impact prediction, mitigation design, and post-approval monitoring phases that structure the assessment workflow (Section 3.6).

3Downward connections to account types enable these applications. Ecosystem condition accounts (compiled within TG-3.1 Asset Accounts, Section 3.4.2) provide quantitative baselines characterising ecosystem state relative to reference conditions. Asset accounts more broadly record opening and closing stocks of ecosystem assets and natural resources, from which impact valuation and offset calculations are derived. Ecosystem service accounts (TG-3.4 Ecosystem Services Accounts) quantify the flows of provisioning, regulating, and cultural services that may be affected by proposed developments. Those flow estimates inform assessment of significance and of mitigation priorities. Physical supply and use tables (PSUTs) from SEEA Central Framework record residual flows such as nutrient discharges, pollutant emissions, and sediment inputs, enabling pollution impact assessment and cumulative pressure analysis (Section 3.4).

4The ecosystem condition and services account structures referenced throughout this Circular are detailed in TG-3.1 Asset Accounts (Section 3.4.2 on condition accounts) and TG-3.4 Ecosystem Services Accounts, whilst appropriate use of monetary values in decision contexts is addressed in TG-1.9 Safe Usage of Monetary Valuation. The integration of accounts with impact assessment also supports marine hazard and risk assessment processes described in TG-2.9 OA and Ocean Risk Assessment and offshore energy assessment contexts addressed in TG-6.9 Offshore Energy.

2. Requirements

1This Circular requires familiarity with:

• 2TG-0.1 General Introduction to Ocean Accounts — for foundational understanding of Ocean Accounts, the Ocean Accounts Framework, and the relationship between ecosystem accounting and decision support
• 3TG-3.1 Asset Accounts — the hard prerequisite for detailed technical guidance on compiling condition accounts (Section 3.4.2) and asset accounts referenced throughout this Circular, including condition indicators, reference levels, condition indices, and asset valuation methods. Practitioners must be familiar with TG-3.1 before applying the baseline, impact prediction, valuation, and offset procedures in Sections 3.1 through 3.8.
• 4TG-3.4 Ecosystem Services Accounts — for detailed technical guidance on ecosystem service measurement and valuation approaches used in impact quantification

5Related Circulars:

• 6TG-1.9 Safe Usage of Monetary Valuation — provides guidance on appropriate use and interpretation of monetary values in decision contexts, essential for valuation applications in EIA
• 7TG-2.9 OA and Ocean Risk Assessment — provides complementary guidance on hazard and risk assessment that informs the cumulative impact dimensions of EIA
• 8TG-3.7 Governance and Institutional Accounts — provides context on the regulatory and institutional frameworks within which EIA operates

3. Guidance Material

3.1 Ocean Accounts as EIA Baseline Data

1Environmental impact assessment depends on establishing baseline conditions against which potential impacts can be measured. UNCLOS Article 206 establishes that states shall assess the potential effects of planned activities when there are reasonable grounds to believe they may cause substantial pollution or significant and harmful changes to the marine environment¹.

2Ocean Accounts provide a structured framework for organising baseline data that serves EIA purposes. The SEEA Ecosystem Accounting framework identifies three primary account types that directly support baseline establishment²:

3Ecosystem extent accounts record the area of different marine and coastal ecosystem types within defined spatial units. For EIA purposes, extent accounts establish the baseline distribution and area of ecosystems such as seagrass meadows, coral reefs, mangroves, kelp forests, and open water habitats within a project’s area of influence. The IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology provides the reference classification for ecosystem types, which supports consistency across assessments³. Technical guidance on compiling extent accounts is provided in TG-3.1 Asset Accounts, Section 3.5.1.

4Ecosystem condition accounts record the state of ecosystem assets relative to reference conditions. Following the SEEA Ecosystem Accounting approach, condition is measured through ecosystem characteristics organised into physical, chemical, compositional, structural, functional, and landscape/seascape categories⁴. For marine ecosystems, relevant characteristics include water quality parameters (temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, nutrient concentrations, pH), biodiversity indicators (species richness, population abundance, community composition), habitat structural complexity, and connectivity measures. Detailed guidance on condition account compilation is provided in TG-3.1 Asset Accounts, Section 3.4.2.

5Ecosystem services accounts record the contributions of ecosystems to benefits used in economic and other human activity⁵. For EIA baseline purposes, services accounts document the current flows of provisioning services (fish provisioning, aquaculture production), regulating services (coastal protection, water purification, carbon sequestration), and cultural services (recreation, tourism, scientific research, spiritual and cultural values) that depend on the ecosystems within the project area. Technical guidance on services account compilation is provided in TG-3.4 Ecosystem Services Accounts.

6SEEA Ecosystem Accounting explicitly recognises EIA as one application of condition accounts, noting that condition data “can be used to inform policy- and decision-making across a range of sectors that impact or depend on ecosystems and natural resources, including land-use planning, environmental impact assessment, agricultural planning and authorization processes, and programmes for ecosystem rehabilitation or restoration”⁶.

Application procedure for EIA practitioners

1To access and use Ocean Accounts data for EIA baseline development, practitioners should follow this procedure:

2Step 1: Identify relevant accounting areas. Determine which Ecosystem Accounting Areas (EAAs) or Basic Spatial Units (BSUs) intersect with the proposed project’s area of influence. Contact the national statistical office or environmental agency responsible for Ocean Accounts compilation to obtain spatial boundary files.

3Step 2: Obtain account data. Request the most recent ecosystem extent accounts, condition accounts, and service flow accounts for the relevant EAAs. Ideally, request time series data covering at least two accounting periods to establish baseline trends rather than single-point-in-time values.

4Step 3: Assess spatial resolution. Compare the spatial resolution of the accounts (typically compiled at regional or sub-national scale) with the scale of the proposed project. Supplementary site surveys are required when either of the following indicative conditions is met. Where supplementary surveys use remote sensing or geospatial methods, practitioners should follow TG-4.1 Remote Sensing and Geospatial Data to ensure consistency with the spatial data formats used in ecosystem extent accounts. (these thresholds are GOAP editorial guidance, not SEEA-specified rules, and compilers may calibrate them to local context with documented justification): (a) the project footprint covers less than 10% of the relevant BSU, meaning account-level averages may not represent site conditions, or (b) within-BSU heterogeneity is documented, evidenced by a coefficient of variation in condition indicators greater than 30% across the BSU. Where neither condition applies, account data may be used directly as baseline with appropriate uncertainty documentation. Any supplementary surveys must use methods consistent with the accounting framework classifications to enable future contribution of project monitoring data back to the accounts.

5Step 4: Extract baseline indicators. From condition accounts, extract the values of condition variables relevant to the ecosystem types present in the project area. From extent accounts, extract opening extent (hectares or km2) for each ecosystem type. From service flow accounts, extract the annual flow rates of ecosystem services potentially affected by the project.

6Step 5: Document reference conditions. Identify the reference levels used in the condition accounts and document these as the baseline against which project impacts will be assessed. Where account data are not available or are of insufficient spatial resolution, conduct supplementary baseline surveys using methods consistent with the accounting framework, enabling future contribution of project monitoring data back to the accounts.

3.2 Cumulative Impact Assessment

1Marine ecosystems face cumulative effects from multiple activities and stressors operating over extended time periods and spatial scales. The FDES recognises that it is often not possible to establish direct cause-effect relationships between changes in environmental quality and individual human activities or natural processes, because impacts result from combined and cumulative processes and effects over space and time⁷.

2Ocean Accounts support cumulative impact assessment through three mechanisms:

3Time series analysis: Ocean Accounts are designed to be compiled regularly (ideally annually) to support ongoing monitoring and trend analysis⁸. This time series structure enables assessment of cumulative changes in ecosystem extent, condition, and service flows over extended periods. Where accounts record declining condition indices or contracting ecosystem extent over successive accounting periods, that record provides evidence of cumulative degradation that individual project EIAs should consider. Where coral reef extent accounts for a coastal region record a decline from 5,000 ha in 2020 to 4,200 ha in 2025, the resulting 16% reduction provides quantitative context for assessing whether an additional coastal development project would contribute to cumulative habitat loss beyond sustainable thresholds.

4Spatial integration: The accounting framework integrates data across defined spatial units within Ecosystem Accounting Areas, supporting assessment of how multiple projects and activities within a region combine to affect ecosystem assets. The spatial aggregation from Basic Spatial Units to EAAs enables practitioners to assess whether localised project impacts, when combined with other activities within the broader region, may trigger ecosystem-scale responses.

5Physical flow accounts: The SEEA Central Framework establishes accounts for physical flows between the economy and environment, including residual flows such as emissions, wastewater, and solid waste⁹. These physical supply and use tables (PSUTs) enable tracking of pollution loads, nutrient flows, and other pressures that cumulate across activities and time. For marine environments, relevant residual flows include nutrient discharges, sediment inputs, chemical pollutants, marine debris, and greenhouse gas emissions affecting ocean acidification and warming. Compiling PSUTs at regional scale allows practitioners to assess whether a proposed project’s incremental loading would exceed assimilative capacity when added to existing background loads.

6Where PSUTs for the relevant marine region have not yet been compiled, practitioners should take three steps. First, use point-source discharge registers and diffuse load models as interim substitutes for regional pollution load data. Second, structure and express results in a format consistent with future PSUT compilation (following the supply-and-use table structure in SEEA Central Framework Chapter 3⁹), so that project data can be incorporated once PSUTs are available. Third, document explicitly in the EIA report that PSUTs were unavailable and describe the substitute approach used. The five-step pollution assessment framework in Section 3.4 provides additional fallback guidance on data sources when PSUTs are absent.

7The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) defines impacts as “changes in the state of nature (quality or quantity), which may result in changes to the capacity of nature to provide social and economic functions. Impacts can be positive or negative. They can be the result of an organisation’s or another party’s actions and can be direct, indirect or cumulative”¹⁰. This definition emphasises that cumulative impacts manifest as changes in ecosystem state, which condition accounts are designed to measure.

8For cumulative impact assessment in practice, Ocean Accounts support a structured approach:

9Table 1: Cumulative Impact Assessment Framework

Step	Activity	Account Reference
1	Regional baseline	Ecosystem extent and condition accounts for relevant EAA
2	Trend analysis	Time series of condition indices and extent changes
3	Pressure inventory	Physical flow accounts for residual loads by source
4	Additionality assessment	Project incremental contribution to cumulative pressures
5	Threshold consideration	TG-3.1 Section 3.4.2 reference condition methodology; biophysical modelling guidelines (footnote 13)
6	Impact prediction	Expected condition change from cumulative pressures

10The SEEA EA research agenda identifies the value of understanding ecosystem capacity and thresholds, noting connections to the “critical natural capital” concept in economics and the “planetary boundaries” concept in ecology¹¹. Consider a case in which condition accounts record that seagrass canopy density in a BSU has declined to 65% of its reference level, and the reference condition methodology (TG-3.1 Section 3.4.2) identifies 60% as the threshold below which carbon sequestration and nursery services decline non-linearly: an additional project loading that would push condition below this threshold warrants heightened scrutiny in cumulative assessment. The Guidelines on Biophysical Modelling for Ecosystem Accounting provides methods for assessing ecosystem capacity that can inform threshold identification¹².

11Cumulative impact assessment requirements vary across regulatory frameworks but share common analytical needs that accounts can support. Under the EU Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive (2001/42/EC), assessment of plans and programmes must consider cumulative effects on the environment, including biodiversity and ecosystem interactions. Under the United States National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), agencies must consider cumulative impacts defined as impacts resulting from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Ocean Accounts provide the time series data, spatial integration, and pressure-state linkages necessary for cumulative analysis in both contexts.

3.3 Ecosystem Service Valuation in EIA

1Monetary valuation of ecosystem services can inform EIA by expressing environmental impacts in terms comparable to project economic benefits, and thus support more complete cost-benefit analysis. Readers should consult TG-1.9 Safe Usage of Monetary Valuation for detailed guidance on appropriate use of monetary valuation in decision contexts.

2The SEEA Ecosystem Accounting framework establishes exchange values as the appropriate monetary concept for accounting purposes¹³. Exchange values, as defined in the SNA and adopted by the SEEA EA, represent “the values at which goods, services, labour or assets are in fact exchanged or else could be exchanged for cash”¹⁴. This differs from welfare values commonly used in environmental economics, which include consumer surplus and other non-market values.

3Clarification on value concepts for EIA practitioners: Ocean Accounts produce exchange values and nothing else: all account components yield exchange values by construction, consistent with SNA national-accounting conventions. Welfare values (non-use values, consumer surplus, total economic value) are not produced by the accounts, and they require primary valuation studies (stated preference, revealed preference, or benefit transfer) conducted outside the accounts framework. An EIA practitioner using accounts for cost-benefit analysis must supplement with primary welfare-value studies if welfare values are needed. Welfare values cannot be derived from the accounts themselves. Practitioners must always label which value concept is being used and in what context: account outputs should be clearly identified as exchange values, and any supplementary welfare-value analysis should be identified as such and not conflated with the account figures. Cross-reference TG-1.9 Safe Usage of Monetary Valuation for detailed guidance on appropriate use and labelling of monetary values in decision contexts. The choice of value concept changes the result. Welfare values (including consumer surplus and non-use values) will typically be higher, and will therefore yield larger estimates of damage and of offset requirements. Misapplying exchange values to analyses intended to capture full social cost will systematically understate environmental damages.

4The UN SEEA Valuation guidance establishes a tiered hierarchy of valuation methods, ranked by proximity to observed market prices¹⁵. As valuation methods and guidance continue to develop, compilers should consult the most recent SEEA technical guidance and ensure that their application in EIA contexts follows the principles outlined in TG-1.9.

5Table 2: Simplified Valuation Method Grouping for Marine Ecosystem Services

6Note: This table presents an indicative grouping for EIA practitioners and does not correspond to the formal SEEA EA tier numbering. For the authoritative SEEA EA valuation method hierarchy, see NCAVES and MAIA (2022), Chapter 3, Table 1¹⁵.

Group	Method Type	Marine Examples	EIA Application
A	Directly observable values	Commercial fish prices, carbon credit prices	Provisioning service losses with market values
B	Resource rent methods	Fish provisioning service (deducting labor and capital)	Sustainable yield loss valuation
C	Cost-based methods	Coastal protection (avoided damage costs), replacement cost	Regulating service losses
D	Revealed preference methods	Recreation (travel cost), amenity (hedonic pricing)	Cultural service impacts
E	Simulated exchange values	Nursery habitat (production function approaches)	Complex indirect services

7For EIA applications, valuation can support:

• 8Impact quantification: Expressing predicted changes in ecosystem services in monetary terms enables comparison with project economic benefits
• 9Mitigation prioritisation: Valuation identifies which ecosystem services carry the greatest economic weight, and that ranking guides mitigation priorities. Where coastal protection services are valued at USD 12,000/ha/year whilst cultural services are valued at USD 800/ha/year, mitigation efforts may prioritise protection of reef structures that deliver coastal protection over purely aesthetic considerations.
• 10Compensation determination: Where residual impacts require offsetting, valuation informs compensation calculations using asset valuation approaches from TG-3.1 Asset Accounts
• 11Stakeholder communication: Monetary values can communicate environmental significance to audiences more familiar with economic than ecological metrics

12Important limitations apply. The SEEA EA acknowledges that “monetary values will not fully reflect the importance of ecosystems for people and the economy”¹⁶. Specific limitations relevant to EIA include:

1. 13Many ecosystem services lack market values or close market analogues
2. 14Non-use values (existence, bequest, option values) are excluded from exchange value accounting
3. 15Indigenous and local community relationships with marine environments may not be adequately expressed through monetary valuation
4. 16Exchange values may understate impacts on ecosystem services that are underpriced or unpriced in existing markets
5. 17Valuation uncertainty may be substantial, particularly for services far from market transactions

18EIA practitioners should use monetary values as one input alongside qualitative and non-monetary quantitative information about impacts. TG-1.9 Safe Usage of Monetary Valuation provides detailed guidance on contexts where monetary valuation is and is not appropriate, including the recommendation that physical accounts should always be compiled and published alongside monetary accounts to support appropriate interpretation.

3.4 Residual Flows and Pollution Assessment

1Physical flow accounts within the SEEA Central Framework provide a systematic structure for recording emissions and residual flows from economic activities to the environment¹⁷. For marine and coastal EIA, these accounts support assessment of pollution impacts from proposed developments. The SEEA Central Framework defines emissions as “substances released to the environment by establishments and households as a result of production, consumption and accumulation processes”¹⁸, distinguishing emissions to air, water, and soil. For marine environments, relevant residual flows include:

2Table 3: Residual Flow Categories for Marine EIA

Residual Category	Examples	EIA Relevance	Measurement Units
Emissions to water	Nutrients (N, P), heavy metals, POPs, thermal effluents, sediment	Direct marine water quality impacts	kg/year, mg/L concentration
Emissions to air	GHGs, particulates, NOx	Ocean acidification, climate effects	tonnes CO2-eq/year
Solid waste	Marine debris, construction waste, dredge spoil	Benthic habitat impacts, debris accumulation	tonnes/year
Natural resource residuals	Bycatch discards, processing waste	Ecosystem function, nutrient cycling	tonnes/year

3Physical supply and use tables organise these flows, recording which industries generate which residuals and distinguishing residuals collected/treated from those flowing directly to the environment. For EIA, this structure enables:

4Source attribution: Identifying which economic activities contribute which residual flows to marine receiving environments. For example, physical flow accounts might record that aquaculture contributes the largest share of nitrogen loading to a coastal embayment (hypothetically 45%), followed by land-based agriculture (35%) and urban wastewater (20%), providing context for assessing a proposed expansion of aquaculture operations.

5Load estimation: Quantifying total residual flows entering marine ecosystems from multiple sources. Accounts compiled at regional scale provide baseline pollution loading against which project incremental loads can be compared.

6Pathway tracing: Following residual flows from generation through collection, treatment, and ultimate discharge. Such tracing establishes whether proposed treatment measures are adequate to prevent unacceptable impacts.

7Impact linkage: Connecting residual flow accounts to ecosystem condition accounts to assess how pollution loads affect ecosystem state. Where condition accounts record declining dissolved oxygen in a coastal zone whilst physical flow accounts record increasing nutrient loads, the pairing establishes an empirical pressure-state relationship that can inform EIA predictions for projects that would add nutrient loads.

8The FDES organises environmental statistics relevant to residuals into Component 3, covering emissions to air (3.1), wastewater generation and management (3.2), waste generation and management (3.3), and release of chemical substances (3.4)¹⁹. These statistics provide source data for compiling SEEA physical flow accounts.

9For EIA application, integration of Ocean Accounts enables a five-step pollution assessment framework:

1. 10Baseline pollutant loading: Reference existing physical flow accounts to characterise current residual flows to the marine environment within the project area. If PSUTs are unavailable, request data from environmental agencies on existing pollution loads by source category and discharge location.
2. 11Incremental loading: Estimate additional residual flows from the proposed project using emission factors appropriate to the activity type, process technology, and any proposed treatment systems.
3. 12Cumulative loading: Sum baseline and incremental loads to assess cumulative pollution pressure. Compare cumulative loading against water quality standards or ecosystem assimilative capacity thresholds.
4. 13Condition response: Use established relationships between residual loads and ecosystem condition indicators (from historical accounts or scientific literature) to predict impact on condition accounts. Where historical data indicate that nitrogen loading >100 kg/ha/year correlates with seagrass canopy density <60%, this threshold informs impact prediction.
5. 14Service effects: Trace how predicted condition changes may affect ecosystem service flows using the relationships documented in TG-3.4 Ecosystem Services Accounts.

3.5 Ecosystem Degradation and Damage Cost Valuation

1Ecosystem degradation (the decline in ecosystem condition) can be expressed in monetary terms using damage cost approaches that estimate the economic value of lost ecosystem service flows resulting from condition decline. This application is particularly relevant for EIA when quantifying residual impacts after mitigation, calculating compensation requirements, or comparing alternative development scenarios. The SEEA Ecosystem Accounting framework defines ecosystem degradation as the decline in the monetary value of an ecosystem asset resulting from declining condition during an accounting period²⁰.

Applicability of the simplified linear approximation

1Before applying the degradation formula below, practitioners should confirm that the linear approximation is appropriate for their context. The simplified linear formula is appropriate only where all three of the following conditions are met:

2(a) Condition decline is 20 percentage points or less, that is, the absolute change in the condition index does not exceed 0.20. This cut-off is indicative compiler judgement rather than a SEEA-specified threshold, and practitioners should adjust it where domain-specific evidence supports a different value. Larger declines are more likely to involve non-linear service losses.

3(b) No threshold responses are documented in the relevant ecosystem literature for the ecosystem type and service combination being valued. If published studies indicate that condition decline triggers disproportionate service loss at any intermediate point within the predicted range, the linear approximation will underestimate damage.

4(c) A single dominant service type drives asset value (i.e., one service accounts for more than approximately 70% of total annual service flow value per hectare, an indicative threshold that is not SEEA-specified). Where multiple services of roughly equal weight respond differently to the same condition change, separate service-specific calculations should replace the aggregated formula.

5Decision checklist:

• 6 Is absolute condition decline 0.20 or less? If no, use ecosystem-specific biophysical model (see footnote 13).
• 7 Does the ecosystem literature document threshold responses within the predicted condition range? If yes, use biophysical model or apply conservative non-linear adjustment (e.g., service loss proportional to condition decline squared). Consult the Guidelines on Biophysical Modelling for Ecosystem Accounting¹².
• 8 Does one service type account for more than approximately 70% of asset value? If no, calculate degradation separately for each major service.

Degradation formula

1Degradation (simplified linear approximation) = (Condition decline) × (Present value of affected service flows)

2Definition of “condition decline”: In this formula, “condition decline” means the absolute change in the condition index, expressed in index points. For example, if the condition index falls from 0.72 to 0.60, the condition decline is 0.12 (not the proportional change of 16.7% relative to opening condition). Practitioners must use the absolute index-point change consistently throughout all calculations.

3For EIA application, this formula enables practitioners to estimate the damage cost of predicted ecosystem impacts. Consider a coastal development expected to reduce coral reef condition index from 0.75 to 0.60 (a decline of 0.15 index points) across 100 hectares. If the reef provides coastal protection services valued at USD 10,000/ha/year and biodiversity habitat services valued at USD 2,000/ha/year, and using a 4% discount rate for perpetual service flows (consistent with social discount rates used in several OECD national accounting frameworks, and practitioners should substitute their national treasury or green book rate):

4Worked calculation:

• 5Annual service flow per hectare = USD 12,000/ha/year
• 6Asset value per hectare (perpetual annuity) = USD 12,000 / 0.04 = USD 300,000/ha
• 7Total reef asset value (100 ha) = USD 30,000,000
• 8Degradation (0.15 index-point condition decline) = 0.15 × USD 30,000,000 = USD 4,500,000

9Discount rate sensitivity: As the choice of discount rate affects damage cost estimates, practitioners should present results across a range of rates. For the worked example above (USD 30,000,000 total asset value at 4%, condition decline = 0.15):

Discount rate	Asset value (100 ha)	Degradation cost (0.15 decline)
2%	USD 60,000,000	USD 9,000,000
4%	USD 30,000,000	USD 4,500,000
7%	USD 17,143,000	USD 2,571,000

10If engineering solutions to reduce reef impacts would cost USD 4,000,000, the cost-benefit comparison at the 4% rate suggests such measures are economically justified. TG-1.9 Safe Usage of Monetary Valuation provides further guidance on discount rate selection.

11Important methodological considerations:

12Service-specific responses: Different ecosystem services may respond differently to the same condition change. For example, coral cover decline may reduce coastal protection services linearly but reduce biodiversity habitat services exponentially if critical shelter structures are lost. Degradation estimates should separately assess each major service type.

13Uncertainty: Both condition predictions and service valuations involve uncertainty. Practitioners should propagate uncertainty through calculations and present results as ranges rather than point estimates where feasible.

3.6 EIA-Account Integration Points

1The integration of Ocean Accounts into EIA practice follows the standard EIA process phases, with each phase drawing on different account types and data products. Figure 1.6.1 groups the EIA application procedure into scoping, assessment, and decision and monitoring phases. It sets out how each phase draws on multiple ocean account types, with the regulatory decision gate and the adaptive-management feedback loops shown explicitly. Table 4 maps these integration points.

Figure 1.6.1 Seven EIA steps in Scoping, Assessment, and Decision & Monitoring phases draw on multiple ocean account types at every stage. [a] Colour chips = account types per step. [b] Dashed loops = adaptive management and corrective action. Scope: project-level EIA (SEA in text). Source: TG-1.6 Environmental Impact Assessment, Section 3.6 (EIA phase / Ocean Account mapping, Table 4), Section 3.7 (approval processes, institutional arrangements, adaptive management) and Section 3.8 (worked example). Adapted from: Espoo Convention 1991 (transboundary EIA); EU EIA Directive 2014/52/EU Annexes II.A, IV; SEEA EA 2024 Chapter 12 (applications of ecosystem accounts).

2Table 4: EIA-Account Integration Points

EIA Phase	Account Input	Use in EIA	Data Access Pathway
Screening	Extent accounts	Identify sensitive ecosystem presence	Request EAA spatial layers (vector format, polygon boundaries) from the national statistical office (NSO) or designated environmental data custodian
Scoping	Condition accounts	Identify key condition variables to monitor	Request the condition account indicator dataset for relevant EAA from the NSO or national environmental agency; specify ecosystem types present in the project area
Baseline	Condition + extent accounts	Establish pre-project condition and extent	Request multi-year condition and extent time series (minimum two periods) from the NSO; where jurisdiction-specific data portals exist, see TG-3.7 for institutional mapping
Impact prediction	Service flow accounts	Quantify affected services	Request ecosystem service flow tables for relevant EAA from the NSO or environmental agency; where pathway varies by jurisdiction, consult TG-3.7 for the responsible institution
Mitigation design	Asset values	Cost-benefit of mitigation options	Request asset valuation coefficients or apply NPV methods from TG-1.9 using service flow data obtained in the impact prediction phase
Monitoring	Condition indicators	Track post-project changes	Use the same condition indicator dataset and spatial layer format obtained in the Scoping phase; submit monitoring results to the NSO under any established data-sharing protocol

3During screening, ecosystem extent accounts identify whether sensitive or high-value ecosystem types are present within and adjacent to the proposed project area, informing decisions about whether full EIA is required. A simple query to the extent account database (e.g., “Are coral reefs, seagrass meadows, or mangroves present within 5 km of the project footprint?”) provides an efficient screening filter.

4During scoping, condition accounts inform the selection of key condition variables to be monitored in project-specific baseline surveys and post-approval monitoring. By using the same condition variables as the national accounts, EIA practitioners ensure that project monitoring data can contribute to updating accounts in future compilation cycles.

5At the impact prediction stage, ecosystem service flow accounts enable practitioners to quantify which services may be affected and estimate the magnitude of change. The linkages between condition variables and service flows documented in TG-3.4 Ecosystem Services Accounts provide the basis for translating predicted condition changes into expected service flow impacts.

6During mitigation design, monetary asset values from the accounts support cost-benefit comparison of alternative mitigation measures. Where protecting 10 hectares of reef costs USD 500,000 but provides USD 3,000,000 in avoided degradation (using asset valuation methods), the asset values demonstrate that protection is economically justified. During monitoring, condition indicators drawn from the accounting framework provide standardised metrics for tracking post-project changes against the same baselines used in the original assessment. Those metrics support adaptive management.

7Post-approval monitoring can contribute data back to accounts, which establishes a feedback loop between project-level assessment and national accounting. Regulators should establish data-sharing protocols that enable project monitoring data to flow back to national accounts compilers.

3.7 Linking Accounts to Approval Processes

1The procedural integration of Ocean Accounts into regulatory EIA processes requires consideration of institutional arrangements, data governance, and the distinct purposes of accounting versus assessment.

2Institutional arrangements: Effective integration requires coordination between national statistical offices (NSOs) that typically lead ecosystem accounting, environmental regulatory agencies that administer EIA, and technical agencies that manage environmental monitoring data. The SEEA EA recognises this need, noting that “implementation necessitates a highly collaborative approach and the active participation of representatives of many different agencies and disciplines, including geography, ecology, economics and statistics”²¹. For EIA integration, this collaboration should extend to environmental assessment practitioners and regulators through formal agreements specifying data access, update protocols, and reciprocal obligations.

3Data access and standardisation: EIA practitioners require access to Ocean Accounts data in usable formats. This includes:

• 4Spatial data on ecosystem extent at resolution relevant to project scales (ideally vector layers with <1 km2 spatial units)
• 5Condition account data for ecosystem types within project areas, including raw variable values and normalised indicators
• 6Physical flow data for residual loads in project regions, disaggregated by source sector
• 7Service flow data for ecosystem services potentially affected, including valuation coefficients where available

8NSOs and environmental agencies should jointly develop data access portals or API services that enable EIA practitioners to query accounts by geographic coordinates, ecosystem type, or administrative region.

9Temporal alignment: EIA timelines often do not align with accounting periods. Assessments may occur between account compilation years or require baseline data for periods before accounting began. Account data should be supplemented with project-specific surveys while ensuring consistency in methods and definitions with the accounting framework. Where accounts are compiled biennially or triennially rather than annually, interpolation methods may be needed to estimate conditions for intermediate years, with uncertainty clearly documented.

10Legal and procedural integration: Formal integration of accounts into EIA requires regulatory recognition. Options include:

11Table 5: Regulatory Integration Mechanisms

Integration Mechanism	Implementation Pathway
Guidance reference	Revise national EIA guidelines to specify accounts as preferred data source
Consistency requirements	Add review criterion to EIA terms of reference
Significance criteria	Adopt numerical thresholds linked to condition indices
Regional assessment	Compile accounts at EAA scale matching SEA boundaries
Offset calculation	Specify valuation methods consistent with SEEA EA

12Monitoring and follow-up: Post-approval monitoring can contribute data back to accounts. Where EIA predicts impacts on specific condition indicators, monitoring these indicators strengthens both compliance verification and the accounts themselves. Regulators should establish reporting requirements that standardise monitoring data formats to facilitate integration with national accounts databases. The SEEA EA notes that accounts can support “the design and monitoring of policy responses” including “authorization processes”²².

Environmental offsets and no-net-loss policies

1Ocean Accounts provide a quantitative foundation for environmental offset and no-net-loss policies that apply in a growing number of marine EIA contexts. Ecosystem extent and condition accounts establish the quantitative baselines against which offset requirements can be calculated. The offset requirement formula uses the condition index of the habitat that is lost (or degraded), not the condition gain from a restoration action. Consider a port expansion that will result in the loss of 5 hectares of seagrass at condition index 0.80. The offset requirement is:

Offset requirement = (Lost extent) × (Condition of lost habitat) × (Multiplier)

2Note on the multiplier: The multiplier is determined by the relevant regulatory authority and is not prescribed by the Ocean Accounts framework. Ocean Accounts provide the input data for the formula (extent and condition metrics) but do not set the multiplier. The illustrative example in this section uses a 2:1 multiplier, whilst the worked example in Section 3.8 uses a regulator-specified 3:1 multiplier. Practitioners should apply the multiplier required by the applicable regulatory regime.

3Applying a 2:1 multiplier (illustrative only) to account for implementation risk and time lag:

Offset = 5 ha × 0.80 × 2 = 8 ha-equivalents of seagrass at reference condition

4The restoration equivalence unit for delivery of the offset is defined as:

ha-equivalents delivered = (Restored area) × (Condition gain)

5where condition gain is the absolute increase in condition index achieved by the restoration action. Using this definition consistently with the requirement formula: restoration of 10 hectares of degraded seagrass from condition 0.60 to 0.80 delivers 10 × 0.20 = 2.0 ha-equivalents, which is insufficient to meet the 8 ha-equivalent requirement. Restoring 10 hectares from 0.50 to 0.80 (gain of 0.30) would deliver 10 × 0.30 = 3.0 ha-equivalents, still insufficient. The offset could instead be achieved through protection of 8 hectares of high-quality seagrass at risk of loss.

6Side-by-side equivalence check (illustrative seagrass example):

Side	Formula	Values	Result
Requirement	Lost extent × Condition of lost habitat × Multiplier	5 ha × 0.80 × 2	8.0 ha-equivalents required
Delivery (option A)	Restored area × Condition gain	10 ha × 0.20 (from 0.60 to 0.80)	2.0 ha-equivalents delivered (shortfall)
Delivery (option B)	Restored area × Condition gain	10 ha × 0.30 (from 0.50 to 0.80)	3.0 ha-equivalents delivered (shortfall)
Delivery (option C)	Area protected × Condition preserved	8 ha at reference condition	8.0 ha-equivalents (meets requirement)

7Both sides of the equivalence calculation must use the same condition metric definition (absolute index points) to produce comparable results. Ecosystem service flow accounts enable assessment of whether proposed offsets adequately compensate for lost service flows, in addition to habitat area. If the 5 hectares of lost seagrass provided coastal stabilisation services valued at USD 2,000/ha/year and fish nursery services valued at USD 1,500/ha/year, the offset must provide equivalent service flows:

Required service compensation = 5 ha × USD 3,500/ha/year = USD 17,500/year

8The offsetting actions must demonstrably provide this level of service flow to achieve functional equivalence. Using asset valuation methods from TG-3.1 Asset Accounts, the present value of the lost asset is:

Lost asset value = (Annual service flow) / (Discount rate) Lost asset value = USD 17,500 / 0.04 = USD 437,500

9This provides a quantitative basis for determining financial compensation where physical offsetting is not feasible.

10Temporal discounting of offset delivery: Marine restoration offsets typically take 5—20 years to deliver the promised condition gain, whilst the impact occurs immediately. A nominal 1:1 equivalence at eventual full achievement understates the interim loss of ecosystem services during the restoration period. Some regulatory frameworks address this through temporal discounting provisions or by requiring upfront financial assurance (e.g., surety bonds or in-lieu fee arrangements) that compensate for the time lag. Practitioners should consult their applicable regulatory framework for guidance on whether temporal provisions apply. Where none exist, the multiplier (see above) partly serves this function by requiring over-delivery on the offset.

11Time series data support assessment of whether offsets achieve their intended outcomes over the long term. Post-implementation monitoring should track condition variables and service flows using the same methods as the accounts. This supports objective assessment of offset success and triggers adaptive management responses if targets are not met.

12Countries implementing marine offset policies should ensure that offset accounting is consistent with their broader Ocean Accounts framework to maintain coherence between project-level compensation and national ecosystem reporting²³.

13Practical considerations for regulatory integration include:

• 14Proportionality: Account-based assessment should be proportionate to project scale and impact significance. Major projects warrant detailed integration. Minor projects may reference summary indicators.
• 15Uncertainty acknowledgment: Both accounts and EIA involve uncertainty. Integration should maintain transparency about data quality and predictive confidence, using uncertainty ranges where feasible.
• 16Adaptive management: Account time series enable adaptive management by tracking actual changes against EIA predictions, informing management responses when impacts exceed predictions.
• 17Transboundary considerations: Marine ecosystems often cross jurisdictional boundaries. Account-based assessment can support transboundary EIA by providing consistent data frameworks across jurisdictions. The primary international framework for transboundary EIA is the Espoo Convention (Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, 1991), which establishes notification, consultation, and participation obligations among Parties when a proposed activity is likely to have significant adverse transboundary impacts. Regional seas programmes provide additional frameworks for data sharing and coordinated assessment: OSPAR (Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic) governs transboundary assessment obligations across fifteen Parties in the North-East Atlantic, and the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution offers a regional model for coordinated environmental assessment in Southeast Asian marine contexts. National Ocean Accounts compiled consistently with SEEA EA provide the common data language for applying these instruments. See also TG-2.9 OA and Ocean Risk Assessment for guidance on transboundary risk assessment.

3.8 Worked Example: EIA for Coastal Development Using OA Data

1This section presents a synthetic worked example demonstrating how Ocean Accounts data support EIA for a proposed coastal resort development. The example illustrates the application procedure described in Section 3.1, the integration points mapped in Section 3.6, and the valuation and offset calculations detailed in Sections 3.3, 3.5, and 3.7.

Project description

1A private developer proposes to construct a 200-room coastal resort on a 15-hectare site at Coral Bay, including hotel buildings, marina facilities for 50 vessels, wastewater treatment infrastructure, and beach access amenities. The project is located within the Coral Bay Ecosystem Accounting Area, for which the national statistical office compiles annual ocean accounts.

Step 1: Screening and account data access

1The EIA practitioner contacts the NSO to obtain ecosystem extent accounts for the Coral Bay EAA. The extent account records the following within 2 km of the proposed site:

• 2120 hectares of fringing coral reef (condition index 0.72)
• 345 hectares of seagrass meadow (condition index 0.68)
• 4180 hectares of mangrove forest (condition index 0.75)

5The presence of these sensitive ecosystems triggers full EIA requirements under national regulations.

Step 2: Baseline establishment from condition accounts

1The practitioner requests condition accounts for the three ecosystem types. The accounts provide baseline values for six ECT classes²⁴:

2Coral Reef Condition Variables (2025 baseline):

• 3A1 Physical: Sea surface temperature 28.2°C (reference: 27.5°C)
• 4A2 Chemical: pH 8.05 (reference: 8.15)
• 5B1 Compositional: Coral species richness 42 species (reference: 55 species)
• 6B2 Structural: Live coral cover 38% (reference: 55%)
• 7B3 Functional: Net calcification 4.8 kg CaCO3/m2/yr (reference: 7.0)
• 8C Seascape: Connectivity index 0.65 (reference: 0.85)

9These baseline values establish the pre-project state against which impacts will be assessed.

Step 3: Impact prediction using condition-service relationships

1The project Environmental Impact Statement predicts that marina construction will directly impact 2 hectares of coral reef and 1 hectare of seagrass through dredging. Indirect impacts from increased turbidity, nutrient loading, and visitor pressure are predicted to reduce coral reef condition index from 0.72 to 0.60 across an additional 8 hectares (total 10 ha affected, with 2 ha direct loss and 8 ha degradation).

2Using ecosystem service flow accounts from TG-3.4 Ecosystem Services Accounts, the practitioner quantifies affected services:

3Coral Reef Services (per hectare per year):

• 4Coastal protection (avoided damage): USD 8,500/ha/yr
• 5Fish nursery habitat: USD 1,800/ha/yr
• 6Tourism/recreation: USD 3,200/ha/yr
• 7Total annual flow: USD 13,500/ha/yr

8Seagrass Services (per hectare per year):

• 9Coastal stabilisation: USD 2,000/ha/yr
• 10Carbon sequestration: USD 400/ha/yr (at USD 50/tonne CO2)
• 11Fish nursery habitat: USD 1,200/ha/yr
• 12Total annual flow: USD 3,600/ha/yr

Step 4: Degradation and damage cost calculation

1Using methods from Section 3.5:

2Coral reef degradation:

• 3

  Extent loss (2 ha): Asset value = 2 ha × (USD 13,500/yr / 0.04) = USD 675,000. Note: extent loss applies the full asset value per hectare regardless of current condition (0.72), consistent with SEEA EA depletion accounting — the entire asset is permanently removed, so the full reference-condition value is the appropriate measure of loss.

• 4

  Condition decline (8 ha, a decline of 0.12 index points from 0.72 to 0.60): Degradation = 8 ha × (USD 13,500/yr / 0.04) × 0.12 = USD 324,000

• 5

  Total coral reef damage: USD 675,000 + USD 324,000 = USD 999,000

6Seagrass degradation:

• 7Extent loss (1 ha): Asset value = 1 ha × (USD 3,600/yr / 0.04) = USD 90,000

8Total damage cost: USD 1,089,000

9This quantification enables cost-benefit comparison with project economic benefits (estimated at USD 8,500,000 NPV over 30 years) and informs mitigation design.

Step 5: Mitigation design and residual impact assessment

1The developer proposes three mitigation measures:

1. 2Relocate marina to sandy substrate, avoiding direct coral reef impact (saves 2 ha reef, cost USD 400,000)
2. 3Install advanced wastewater treatment to reduce nutrient loading by 80% (reduces condition decline from 8 ha to 3 ha, cost USD 250,000)
3. 4Implement visitor management plan limiting reef access (further reduces degraded area from 3 ha to 2 ha, cost USD 50,000)

5Residual impacts after mitigation:

• 6Seagrass loss: 1 ha (damage cost USD 90,000)
• 7Coral condition decline: 2 ha with a decline of 0.12 index points (damage cost 2 ha × (USD 13,500/yr / 0.04) × 0.12 = USD 81,000)
• 8Total residual damage: USD 171,000

9Mitigation cost: USD 700,000

10Avoided damage: USD 1,089,000 - USD 171,000 = USD 918,000

11Cost-benefit analysis indicates mitigation is economically justified (ratio of avoided damage to mitigation cost = USD 918,000 / USD 700,000 = 1.31).

Step 6: Offset calculation

1For residual impacts, regulators require a 3:1 biodiversity offset (regulator-specified, see Section 3.7 note on multipliers):

2Seagrass offset: Applying the full formula: 1 ha × 0.68 (condition of lost seagrass, from Step 1) × 3 = 2.04 ha-equivalents required. The developer commits to restoring 15 hectares of degraded seagrass from condition 0.50 to 0.80. This delivers a net gain of 15 × 0.30 = 4.5 ha-equivalents, which comfortably exceeds the 2.04 ha-equivalent requirement.

3Coral offset: For this degradation (not extent-loss) case, the formula factor is the condition decline rather than the condition of lost habitat, treating the calculation as condition-weighted hectares of effective loss: 2 ha × 0.12 (absolute condition decline) × 3 = 0.72 ha-equivalents required. The developer commits to funding a 5-hectare marine protected area expansion. This protects reef at condition 0.75 from fishing pressure that would otherwise reduce condition to 0.55, delivering 5 × 0.20 = 1.0 ha-equivalents. This exceeds the requirement of 0.72 ha-equivalents.

Step 7: Monitoring using account indicators

1The approved EIA includes monitoring requirements using the same condition variables as national accounts:

• 2Annual monitoring of coral cover, species richness, and pH at 10 fixed stations within 1 km of development
• 3Biennial seagrass surveys measuring canopy density and extent
• 4Quarterly water quality monitoring for nutrients, turbidity, and temperature

5Monitoring data will be provided to the NSO to support future account updates. This allows assessment of whether actual impacts match predictions and whether offsets achieve intended outcomes.

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. 1

   United Nations. (1982). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Article 206. ↩

2. 2

   United Nations. (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting—Ecosystem Accounting, Chapter 1. ↩

3. 3

   Keith, D.A., et al. (2020). The IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology 2.0. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. ↩

4. 4

   United Nations. (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting—Ecosystem Accounting, Chapter 5, paras 5.30-5.43, Table 5.2. ↩

5. 5

   United Nations. (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting—Ecosystem Accounting, Chapter 6, para 6.9. ↩

6. 6

   United Nations. (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting—Ecosystem Accounting, para 5.126. ↩

7. 7

   United Nations. (2017). Framework for the Development of Environment Statistics, para 2.14. ↩

8. 8

   United Nations. (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting—Ecosystem Accounting, para 1.66. ↩

9. 9

   United Nations, European Union, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and World Bank. (2014). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012—Central Framework, Chapter 3. ↩ ↩²

10. 10

    TNFD. (2023). Recommendations of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, Glossary. ↩

11. 11

    United Nations. (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting—Ecosystem Accounting, para 5.129. ↩

12. 12

    United Nations. (2022). Guidelines on Biophysical Modelling for Ecosystem Accounting. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division. ↩ ↩²

13. 13

    United Nations. (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting—Ecosystem Accounting, Chapter 8, para 8.2. ↩

14. 14

    United Nations. (2009). System of National Accounts 2008, para 3.118. ↩

15. 15

    NCAVES and MAIA. (2022). Monetary Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Assets for Ecosystem Accounting: Interim Version, Chapter 3. ↩ ↩²

16. 16

    United Nations. (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting—Ecosystem Accounting, Preface. ↩

17. 17

    United Nations et al. (2014). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012—Central Framework, Chapter 3. ↩

18. 18

    United Nations et al. (2014). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012—Central Framework, para 3.88. ↩

19. 19

    United Nations. (2017). Framework for the Development of Environment Statistics, Component 3. ↩

20. 20

    United Nations. (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting—Ecosystem Accounting, Chapter 11, para 11.25. ↩

21. 21

    United Nations. (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting—Ecosystem Accounting, para 1.52. ↩

22. 22

    United Nations. (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting—Ecosystem Accounting, para 5.126. ↩

23. 23

    United Nations. (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting—Ecosystem Accounting, Chapter 12, paras 12.35-12.40. ↩

24. 24

    The A1/A2/B1/B2/B3/C classification follows the SEEA EA ecosystem characteristic types (Table 5.2, SEEA EA 2021) and is developed in detail in TG-3.1 Asset Accounts, Section 3.4.2 (condition accounts). The groupings may differ slightly across ecosystem types. TG-3.1 Section 3.4.2 provides ecosystem-specific indicator lists. ↩