2. Using accounts and indicators in decision-making
- Process Guidance for Compilation of Ocean Accounts
- 2.1 Using indicators for sustainable development
- 2.3 Policy and governance use cases for Ocean Accounts
- 2.4 Research use cases for Ocean Accounts
- 2.5 Enabling factors for ocean accounting
Process Guidance for Compilation of Ocean Accounts
This section, after reading the Introduction, is recommended as the starting point for multidisciplinary teams planning to engage in ocean accounting. All members of the team, data providers, compilers, and users should be familiar with the basic concepts and methods.
A stand alone guide on Ocean Accounts for Sustainable Ocean Planning is also a good guide to become familiar with.
This section provides guidance on planning for, managing, compiling, and using Ocean Accounts. It draws from experience in SEEA implementation and in Ocean Accounts pilots. This experience has proven that developing reliable, quality, and relevant statistics benefits from stakeholder engagement throughout the process. If stakeholders agree on priorities and are well-informed about the concepts, they are more likely to contribute their expertise and to use the results.
This section summarizes key components of the Ocean Accounts Framework. Included are the main recommendations on spatial data, asset extent and condition, services supply and use, assessing the ocean economy, governance, and indicators.
Ocean accounting builds on accepted international statistical frameworks to harmonize environmental, social, and economic data about the ocean. By “ocean,” it refers to coastal and marine areas, within and beyond national jurisdictions. “Accounting” refers to the standardization of data, including maps, so that data collected using different standards (concepts, classifications, and methods) can be combined to tell a broader story—often the kind of story that is required to monitor progress towards policy objectives.
The framework (Figure 8) is capable of organizing data in maps and tables on:
- Pressures on the ocean (from SEEA-CF),
- Ocean assets (extent and condition): ecosystems (from SEEA-EEA) and individual environmental assets (from SEEA-CF),
- Ocean services (supply and use): biotic and abiotic (combining SEEA-CF and SEEA-EEA), and
- The ocean economy, including but not limited to “Ocean Economy Satellite Accounting” based on the SNA,
- Governance: including how the ocean is managed, technologies used, and expenditures made to protect it.
Some aspects of ocean assets and services can be valued in monetary terms and thereby contribute to measures of the ocean economy. However, not all values are monetary or could easily be expressed in monetary terms. The ocean is an important contributor to climate stability, species diversity, and cultural heritage. The Ocean Accounts Framework encompasses this broad sense of “values.”
Figure 8. Simplified Ocean Accounts Framework.
2.1 Prioritisation and account development planning
Creating a “complete” set of Ocean Accounts would be complex. However, experience in SEEA implementation has proven that (a) accounts don’t need to be complete and (b) to be policy relevant, not all accounts need to be developed. For example, countries have started SEEA water accounts with available data on municipal supplied water. This already proves the relevance of the accounts and attracts support for adding further detail.
What has proven to be essential, though, is strategic planning in preparation for compiling accounts. The Diagnostic Tool for Environment Statistics is a means of guiding a structured conversation among stakeholders to determine which accounts and which parts of which accounts should and can be implemented first. In countries where there is no ongoing institutional mechanism for developing environment statistics, stakeholders consulted during the processes of applying the Diagnostic Tool could be considered the working group. This working group then contributes data, technical expertise and advice to the work as it progresses. Where there is an ongoing institutional mechanism, this could be the main means of engaging stakeholders.
If this working group benefits from the guidance of a senior steering group, it is more likely that resources are made available and that the pilot results will be used to inform policy. The main components of the Diagnostic Tool are as shown in Table 22.
Table 22. Key actions for account development planning
| Diagnostic component | Practical actions |
|---|---|
| Statement of Strategy and Policy Priorities | Document national visions and priorities related to the environment, biodiversity, sustainable development, and green economy, including managing natural assets and flows of services from them. Link priorities to environmental concerns, such as pollution or overfishing. |
| Institutions | Identify stakeholders including producers and users of related information (government agencies, academia, NGOs, international agencies), but also other groups such as civil society that can benefit from improved information. Identify relevant institutional mechanisms currently in place. |
The Diagnostic Tool has been designed for use in a workshop setting. However, iteration will be required to achieve consensus. For example, a small core group may draft initial responses and then present them to a larger group for discussion and revision.
The approach applied in the ESCAP Ocean Accounts pilot studies has been to use the Diagnostic Tool outline as the structure of a more detailed scoping report. The scoping report may be coordinated by an independent consultant, the NSO or by a government agency responsible for the ocean. Some countries have found that engaging an independent consultant in producing the scoping report is more likely to reveal opportunities for improvement.
The ESCAP pilots were all initiated by obtaining commitments from senior managers to proceed. Pilots have been initiated in other countries by government experts presenting initial results to policy experts as a demonstration of feasibility.
Most pilot studies have identified data availability and access as major constraints. Even when data are known to be available, they may be distributed across many sources, use different standards and be difficult to access for confidentiality reasons. The general advice is to know what data you have by conducting an inventory of available data. This may be initiated through the scoping process as a request to relevant data holders. Relevant data may also be available from global data sources (see Data sources and platforms for Ocean Accounts). Pilot studies have addressed these constraints in different ways:
- Using public data: may limit the scope of the study, and data may be difficult to quality check.
- Establishing data sharing arrangements with relevant institutions: may take time.
- Conducting original field work and socio-economic surveys: takes time and resources.
Most Ocean Accounts pilot studies have used the Scoping Report as input to a first national workshop. This workshop is an opportunity to review the scoping report, revise it if necessary and to agree on the focus of the pilot. It is also an opportunity for capacity building: to discuss related stakeholder activities and to conduct training.
When discussing priorities, it is important to understand the broad scope of the Ocean Accounts Framework. Pilots to date have been designed to address topics and policy concerns shown in Table 23 below.
Table 23. Priority topics and policy concerns addressed in Ocean Accounts pilots
| Topic | Policy concern |
|---|---|
| The value of the ocean economy | Sustainability of ocean economy, equitable distribution of benefits, including sustainability of food supply (fish and aquatic plants) |
| Non-market ocean services | Physical measures of regulating and maintenance services (coastal protection, flood mitigation, carbon sequestration, water purification, etc.) |
| Ecosystems extent and/or designated use | Area of ecosystem types and uses of concern; change in area (e.g., decline in mangrove; increase in MPA) |
| Land-based sources of marine pollution | Reducing habitat degradation and biodiversity loss |
| Resource requirements of coastal tourism | Sustainability of tourism economy: providing sufficient resources and minimizing impacts on ecosystems (e.g., closures) |
When substantial progress had been made on the pilot ocean account, most pilot countries have held a second national workshop. This workshop is an opportunity to review preliminary results, to benefit from additional technical guidance and to develop the messaging for a release document. Such a document is important to (a) communicate the results of the compilation, (b) to link it to policy concerns, (c) and to solicit further input on improving the work. The steps for conducting pilot studies are summarized in Figure 9. The process was followed in all five ESCAP Ocean Accounts pilots, which demonstrated substantial results despite the short (6-month) time allocated.
Figure 9. Steps for conducting ocean accounts pilot studies.
2.1 Using indicators for sustainable development
This section presents a general discussion of the importance of indicators for sustainable development policy, linking to the Summary Indicators table of Section 3.8.
2.1.1 SDG Indicators
To keep track of progress against the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 associated targets, the Interagency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators (IAEG-SDGs) developed a framework of over 200 indicators, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in July 2017. Countries are leading on the delivery of the SDGs, on a voluntary basis, and are encouraged to use the framework of globally agreed indicators to report on progress. This will require a significant level of capacity and resources from countries: many indicators do not currently have internationally established methodologies nor available data and/or associated monitoring schemes in place. Countries are encouraged to prioritise and develop their various monitoring schemes over time, in accordance with their national capacities.
To facilitate the implementation of the global indicator framework, the indicators have been classified into three tiers based on the global availability of methodologies and data (see Table 29 for tier classifications). Tier classifications are reviewed annually based on changes in methodologies and data availability and progress in the development of the indicators (as documented in associated work plans).
Table 29. Tier classification criteria and definitions for SDG indicators
| Tier | Definition |
|---|---|
| Tier I | Indicator is conceptually clear, has an internationally established methodology and standards are available, and data are regularly produced by countries. |
| Tier II | Indicator is conceptually clear, has an internationally established methodology and standards are available, but data are not regularly produced by countries. |
| Tier III | No internationally established methodology or standards are yet available for the indicator, but methodology/standards are being (or will be) developed or tested. |
Currently, there are few consistent approaches for data collection and reporting for global targets such as the SDGs, or the Aichi Targets of the UN Strategic Plan for Biodiversity (2010-2020). While social and economic data might be collected by National Statistics Offices in the countries, environmental and ecological data are often collected by Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), research institutes, and other entities.
2.1.2 Other indicator frameworks
Besides the SDG indicators, other international frameworks also provide important sets of indicators for sustainable development, including the Aichi Targets of the UN Strategic Plan for Biodiversity (2010-2020), the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), and the Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) developed by the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON).
2.1.3 Disaster risk indicators
Disaster risk indicators are crucial for understanding and mitigating the impacts of natural hazards on coastal and marine ecosystems. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 outlines global targets and priorities for action, which can be supported by relevant indicators such as those measuring exposure to coastal hazards, resilience of coastal communities, and effectiveness of early warning systems.
2.1.4 Climate change indicators
Climate change indicators are essential for monitoring the impacts of climate change on ocean and coastal ecosystems. These indicators can include measurements of sea level rise, ocean acidification, sea surface temperature, and the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. The Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) provides a framework for climate-related observations, including the Essential Climate Variables (ECVs) that are critical for understanding and addressing climate change impacts.
2.3 Policy and governance use cases for Ocean Accounts
Ocean Accounts are one of a range of different information products that can be used to support policy-making and other government decision-making related to oceans. These can be distinguished from one other in terms of an “information pyramid” that differentiates between the level of information presented, and by the functions an information product supports in government decision-making (see Figure 19 below). The pyramid classifies information products into four groups in a hierarchical structure with each layer feeding the layers above. Data and statistics are the foundation of the pyramid and support the operation of an ocean accounting system. Indicators are produced from the accounts, which can be aggregated to produce key indicators. Indicators can be sourced both directly from data and statistics, and from the accounts.
Figure 19. Relationship between Ocean Accounts and other information products.
Within a comprehensive information system for government decision-making, Ocean Accounts (and all accounts) provide an intermediate structure that connects higher-level information (indicators) with lower-level information (basic data and statistics) in a coherent framework. Consequently, they support analysis and decision-making in a wide variety of policy and governance use cases. A non-exhaustive selection of these use cases is explained further below, organised into the following categories:
- Strategic and planning decisions: Including those associated with marine spatial planning and formulation of strategic development plans for the ocean economy.
- Regulatory decisions: Including granting of permits and licenses for marine activities, in accordance with relevant spatial and development plans or other policy objectives.
- Operational and management decisions: Including integrated coastal zone management, ecosystem-based management, management of marine protected areas, other forms of local marine area-based management, and disaster risk response.
- Finance and investment decisions: Including fiscal policies and programmatic investment related to oceans, including funding for administrative capacity concerning oceans.
- Technical advice and reporting: Including cost-benefit assessment, environmental impact assessments, progress reporting against agreed commitments, and supporting the delivery of decision-making in the above categories.
2.3.1 Strategic and planning decisions
Decision-making about the ocean is increasingly informed by a range of laws, policies, and processes designed to pursue defined strategic objectives, and/or plan use of ocean space in an integrated manner. Prevalent features of ocean policy and governance in this context include:
- Strategic development plans for the ocean economy: Including the proliferating range of national “Blue Economy,” “Ocean Economy,” and “Blue Growth” plans that establish multi-sectoral development objectives and targets aligned with diverse guiding principles. Examples include the European Union’s Blue Growth Strategy, South Africa’s Operation Phakisa Oceans Economy strategy, Fiji’s National Ocean Policy, and Chapter 41 of China’s 13th Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social Development focusing on “widening space” for the Blue Economy.
- Marine spatial planning (MSP): Commonly defined as a public process of analyzing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives that are usually specified through a political process. Diverse MSP approaches are implemented by at least 70 countries across all major regions.
2.3.2 Regulatory decisions
Regulatory decisions involve granting permits and licenses for marine activities in accordance with relevant spatial and development plans or other policy objectives. Ocean Accounts can inform these decisions by providing detailed and integrated information on the environmental, economic, and social impacts of proposed activities.
2.3.3 Operational and management decisions
Operational and management decisions include integrated coastal zone management, ecosystem-based management, management of marine protected areas, and other forms of local marine area-based management. Ocean Accounts provide a comprehensive framework for assessing the status and trends of ocean assets and the effectiveness of management actions.
2.3.4 Finance and investment decisions
Finance and investment decisions include fiscal policies and programmatic investment related to oceans, including funding for administrative capacity concerning oceans. Ocean Accounts can support these decisions by providing robust data on the economic contributions of ocean-related activities and the costs and benefits of different policy options.
2.3.5 Technical advice and reporting
Technical advice and reporting include cost-benefit assessment, environmental impact assessments, progress reporting against agreed commitments, and supporting the delivery of decision-making in the above categories. Ocean Accounts provide a standardized framework for compiling and reporting data, making it easier to provide consistent and comparable advice.
2.3.6 Progress reporting for the post-2015 agreements
Data availability and supporting methodologies are critical to the assessment, monitoring, and reporting of the SDGs. This is particularly relevant to SDG14 where most of the ten proposed indicators were initially classified as tier III. In 2019, the UN Environment’s “Measuring Progress Towards Achieving the Environmental Dimension of the SDGs” reported that only three SDG14 indicators had some data, of which two had adequate data for trend analysis (i.e., SDG14.5.1 on MPAs and SDG14.4.1 on sustainable fish stocks). This was echoed in the 2020 Asia and the Pacific SDG Progress Report that progress towards 2030 of eight SDG14 indicators could not be measured. For the two indicators that had sufficient data for statistical reporting (SDG14.5.1 on MPAs and SDG14.1.1 on marine pollution – the latter using OHI as a proxy indicator), amplified efforts are needed if they are to achieve the targets.
Although five SDG14 indicators are classified as tier I as of 17 April 2020 (i.e., indicator is conceptually clear, has an internationally established methodology and standards are available, and data are regularly produced by at least 50 per cent of the countries and of the population in every region where the indicator is relevant), the existence of data is uneven – even in Asia and the Pacific where the Indian and Pacific oceans are housed. The ESCAP’s 2020 theme study “Changing Sails: Accelerating Regional Actions for Sustainable Oceans in Asia and the Pacific” highlighted significant knowledge gaps in ocean acidification, fisheries and fishing-related activities, and economic benefits as sufficient data are only available for SDG14.5.1 and a proxy indicator for SDG14.1.1. It concluded that if the paucity of data persists, the Asia-Pacific region is not on track to achieve SDG14 by 2030.
SDG 14 (to conserve and use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development) is linked to a multitude of other SDG targets. Figure 20 below uses a systems analysis approach to uncover links between resilience of oceans, seas, and marine resources (SDG 14) with the other SDGs and their corresponding targets. The left-hand side demonstrates how SDGs and targets can contribute to strengthening resilience, and the right-hand outlines how the SDGs and corresponding targets can in turn be achieved by strengthening resilience. Arrows between the central circle and goals symbolize the direction and depth of each relationship, with a thicker arrow indicating a higher level of impact.
Figure 20. Interlinkages between SDG 14 and other SDGs.
2.4 Research use cases for Ocean Accounts
Ocean Accounts provide a valuable framework for scientific research by offering standardized, integrated, and comprehensive data on the state of the ocean environment, the economy, and governance. Research use cases for Ocean Accounts include:
- Understanding ecosystem services: Investigating the provision, use, and value of ecosystem services provided by ocean assets.
- Assessing impacts of human activities: Studying the effects of different marine and coastal activities on the environment and socio-economic conditions.
- Evaluating management effectiveness: Analyzing the outcomes of different ocean management strategies and policies.
- Modelling and forecasting: Developing models to project future changes in ocean conditions and the implications for ecosystem services and human well-being.
2.5 Enabling factors for ocean accounting
Successful implementation and maintenance of Ocean Accounts depend on several enabling factors, including:
2.5.1 Institutional arrangements
Strong institutional arrangements are essential for coordinating the collection, integration, and use of data across different agencies and stakeholders. This includes establishing clear mandates, roles, and responsibilities for ocean accounting activities.
2.5.2 Capacity building
Building the capacity of national statistical offices, environmental agencies, and other relevant institutions is crucial for the effective compilation and use of Ocean Accounts. This includes training in data collection, management, analysis, and reporting.
2.5.3 Data infrastructure
Developing robust data infrastructure, including databases, data platforms, and information systems, is necessary for storing, managing, and sharing ocean accounting data. This includes ensuring data quality, accessibility, and interoperability.
2.5.4 Legal and regulatory frameworks
Establishing legal and regulatory frameworks that support ocean accounting is important for ensuring the long-term sustainability and credibility of the accounts. This includes enacting legislation that mandates data collection, reporting, and use of Ocean Accounts in decision-making processes.
2.5.5 Stakeholder engagement
Engaging stakeholders, including government agencies, the private sector, academia, and civil society, is vital for ensuring that Ocean Accounts are relevant, accepted, and used. This includes involving stakeholders in the design, implementation, and review of ocean accounting activities.
2.5.6 Financial resources
Securing adequate financial resources is essential for the development and maintenance of Ocean Accounts. This includes funding for data collection, capacity building, data infrastructure, and stakeholder engagement activities.