Implementation Readiness Assessment

1. Outcome

This Circular provides a country readiness self-assessment framework for launching or scaling ocean accounts. It guides countries through evaluating their institutional, data, and human capacity prerequisites, and outlines phased implementation pathways appropriate to different starting conditions. After reading this Circular, national statistical offices, ocean agencies, and inter-ministerial coordination bodies will be able to diagnose their current readiness level, identify priority gaps, design a sequenced implementation plan, and mobilise the institutional arrangements necessary to sustain ocean accounting as a regular statistical programme.

2. Requirements

Essential prerequisites:

• TG-0.1 General Introduction to Ocean Accounts—for the conceptual framework and the nested superset structure of economy, society, and environment

Helpful background:

• TG-0.4 Structure and Focus—for the overall structure of the Technical Guidance and dependency relationships between circulars
• TG-0.5 Navigating the Technical Guidance—for audience pathways that help prioritise which accounts to compile first

3. Guidance Material

3.1 Country Readiness Self-Assessment Framework

3.1.1 Purpose and scope

Implementation readiness assessment is a structured process through which a country evaluates its capacity to initiate, compile, and sustain ocean accounts. The concept draws on established practice in the international statistical community, including the UN Statistical Commission's endorsed strategy for implementing the 2025 SNA, which calls on countries to "self-assess their preparedness" using standardised tools that inform planning, priority-setting, and resource mobilisation.^[1] Similar assessment approaches are embedded in National Strategies for the Development of Statistics (NSDS) guidelines and the UN National Quality Assurance Frameworks Manual (UN-NQAF).^[2][3]

The readiness assessment framework presented here adapts these principles to the specific requirements of ocean accounting. Ocean accounts draw on data and expertise from environmental, economic, and social domains and therefore demand multi-agency coordination that goes beyond the typical scope of national accounts compilation. The assessment must therefore evaluate capacity across all three domains of the Ocean Accounts Framework described in TG-0.1, as well as the institutional arrangements that connect them.

The framework is designed to be applied iteratively. An initial assessment establishes a baseline and informs the choice of implementation pathway (Section 3.2). Subsequent assessments, conducted at regular intervals appropriate to the implementation phase (more frequent during Phase 1 and Phase 2; biennial or aligned with NSDS review cycles in Phase 3), track progress, identify emerging gaps, and support adaptive management of the implementation programme. Countries at any stage of ocean accounting development—from initial scoping to regular production—can use this framework to evaluate their position and plan next steps.

3.1.2 Assessment dimensions

The readiness assessment covers four interconnected dimensions, each of which is essential for sustainable ocean accounting. Legal and regulatory environment is explicitly embedded as a sub-dimension of institutional capacity, because legal barriers to data sharing (such as statistics-act confidentiality clauses or agency-specific data-access laws) operate differently from coordination weakness and must be diagnosed separately:

These dimensions are consistent with the institutional and capacity-building considerations addressed in SEEA EA Chapters 14 (indicator derivation) and 15 (research agenda and implementation), which together emphasise that the derivation of coherent indicators from accounts requires not only technical measurement capacity but also institutional arrangements that support regular data integration across environmental and economic domains.^[4] They also align with the five principles of the Global Statistical Geospatial Framework (GSGF), which stresses the importance of fundamental geospatial infrastructure, interoperability standards, and institutional cooperation for producing geospatially enabled statistics.^[5]

3.1.3 Readiness scoring rubric

Each dimension is scored on a four-level maturity scale aligned to SEEA implementation progression. The levels reflect the stages through which countries typically move as they develop ocean accounting: from pre-pilot (no accounts compiled) through pilot compilation and regular production to multi-account programmes with iterative improvement and active policy use. This framing draws on the progressive implementation model described in Chapter 1 of the SEEA EA Implementation Guide.^[6] The levels are cumulative—achieving a higher level implies that the requirements of lower levels have also been met. Where sub-element profiles are mixed, score to the highest level for which all criteria are met and record partial achievement of higher-level criteria as evidence for gap analysis in §3.1.4 Step 3:

The detailed scoring criteria for each dimension are as follows:

Institutional capacity scoring:

Data infrastructure scoring:

Human skills scoring:

Policy demand scoring:

3.1.4 Conducting the assessment

The self-assessment should be conducted by a small team that includes representatives from the national statistical office, the lead ocean or environment agency, and at least one major data provider. Where possible, a policy user (from a planning or finance ministry) should also participate to ensure the policy demand dimension is accurately scored. The assessment can be completed in a structured workshop of one to two days, following these steps:

1. Preparation: Assemble background documentation including the national statistical plan, any existing data inventories, relevant policy documents, and organisational charts showing institutional responsibilities for ocean-related data.
2. Scoring: Work through each dimension and score against the rubric. Document the evidence supporting each score and note any uncertainties.
3. Gap identification: For each dimension where the score falls below the target level for the intended implementation pathway (Section 3.2), identify specific gaps and their causes. Where sub-element profiles are mixed (higher-level criteria partially met), record the partial achievement as evidence for the gap analysis.
4. Priority setting: Rank gaps by their impact on the chosen pathway and the feasibility of addressing them. Use the requirements matrix in Section 3.3 to map gaps to specific account types.
5. Action planning: Develop a time-bound action plan to address priority gaps, assigning responsibilities and identifying resource requirements.
6. External review (Recommended): Share the completed readiness assessment with a peer country, regional statistical body, or GOAP technical assistance team for independent validation. External review is particularly valuable where self-assessment scores fall at level boundaries (e.g., between Pilot compilation and Regular compilation) or where institutional capacity constraints make objective scoring difficult. GOAP technical assistance missions and regional peer-review processes (e.g., Pacific Community regional statistics programme) are available entry points.

The completed assessment should be documented in a standardised format and shared with relevant stakeholders, including potential international partners and technical assistance providers. Countries are encouraged to share their assessments through the GOAP network to support peer learning and to help the partnership target support effectively.

3.2 Phased Implementation Pathway

3.2.1 Rationale for phased implementation

Ocean accounting is a multi-year undertaking. Experience with SEEA implementation globally demonstrates that countries achieve the most sustainable results when they adopt a phased approach that builds incrementally from simpler to more complex accounts, expanding coverage and sophistication over time.^[6:1] The 2025 SNA implementation strategy similarly recommends that countries plan implementation in stages—scoping, adaptation, estimation, and follow-up—with explicit milestones and performance metrics.^[1:1]

A phased approach allows resource requirements to align with available capacity—the risk of overcommitment being one of the main causes of incomplete programmes globally.

3.2.2 Three-phase pathway

The following three-phase pathway is recommended as a general model. Countries should adapt it to their specific circumstances, taking account of their readiness assessment results, policy priorities, and available resources. The phases are not rigidly sequential—countries may pursue elements of later phases in parallel with earlier ones where capacity permits.

Phase 1: Foundation

The foundation phase establishes the institutional and technical prerequisites for ocean accounting and delivers initial account products. Key activities include:

• Institutional setup: Identify and formalise the lead agency. Establish an inter-agency coordination mechanism (see Section 3.5). Secure initial funding, which may combine government budget with international technical assistance.

• Data inventory and gap analysis: Conduct a comprehensive inventory of ocean-relevant data holdings across government agencies, research institutions, and international sources. Assess data quality, spatial coverage, temporal frequency, and accessibility. Identify critical gaps and develop a data acquisition plan.

• Spatial framework: Define the ecosystem accounting area(s) and establish a common spatial framework that allows environmental, economic, and social data to be spatially referenced and integrated. This should align with the GSGF principles on common geographies and geocoding.^[5:1]

• Initial accounts—three entry-point pathways: Compile at least one type of account to demonstrate feasibility and generate initial policy-relevant outputs. The appropriate entry point depends on country starting conditions and should follow this decision rule:

  Entry point 1—SEEA CF / Ocean Economy Satellite Accounting (OESA): Recommended where a country has strong SNA infrastructure and an active NSO. This pathway builds directly on existing national accounting systems and keeps the NSO as programme lead. OESA—disaggregating ocean-related components from the National Accounts—is typically the first deliverable, as it requires industry-classification work within the existing SNA. SEEA CF ocean modules (physical and monetary flow accounts for ocean-relevant sectors such as fisheries and water) follow as data integration with environmental sources deepens. Fisheries, maritime transport, and coastal tourism accounts are typical starting products.

  Entry point 2—SEEA EA extent accounts: Recommended where a country has strong spatial data infrastructure (remote sensing, marine surveys, habitat mapping programmes) but weaker SNA capacity. Ecosystem extent accounts for one or two marine or coastal ecosystem types (e.g., mangroves, coral reefs) can be compiled largely from remote sensing data and can be led by an environment agency or external institution without full SNA alignment.

  Entry point 3—Opportunity-led pilot (externally supported): Recommended where both SNA and spatial capacity are limited. Start with whichever account type has the strongest existing data champion and the clearest near-term policy use. Externally led pilots—where a university, NGO, or consultancy leads initial compilation with government participation—are a recognised and common entry pathway, often preceding government internalisation of the programme (Trueb et al., 2024).^[7]

  The following decision table summarises the entry-point recommendation for each combination of SNA / NSO and spatial / remote-sensing capacity:

  SNA / NSO strong?	Spatial / RS strong?	Recommended entry point
  Yes	Yes	Entry points 1 and 2, in parallel or in close sequence subject to team capacity (see §3.4.1)
  Yes	No	Entry point 1 (SEEA CF / OESA)
  No	Yes	Entry point 2 (SEEA EA extent)
  No	No	Entry point 3 (Opportunity-led pilot)

• Stakeholder engagement: Present initial results to policy users and other stakeholders to test relevance, build demand, and refine the work programme for Phase 2.

Phase 2: Expansion

Phase 2 begins at Phase 1 completion as the default, with elements that may be initiated in parallel where capacity permits. The expansion phase broadens account coverage, deepens analytical capability, and strengthens institutional arrangements. Key activities include:

• Additional account types: Extend to ecosystem condition accounts, physical ecosystem service flow accounts, and asset accounts. The sequence should be guided by policy demand and data availability. The requirements matrix in Section 3.3 provides guidance on the data and capacity prerequisites for each account type.
• Monetary valuation: Initiate monetary valuation of ecosystem services where appropriate, beginning with services where market-based valuation methods can be applied (e.g., provisioning services valued through market prices).
• Indicator derivation: Develop indicators from the accounts that respond to specific policy needs, following the approach described in SEEA EA Chapter 14.^[4:1] Ensure that indicators are designed in consultation with policy users and are presented in accessible formats.
• Capacity building: Expand the core team and develop training programmes following the three-horizon strategy described in Section 3.4.3.
• Institutional consolidation: Formalise data-sharing agreements. Integrate ocean accounting into the National Strategy for the Development of Statistics (NSDS) or equivalent. Establish quality assurance procedures aligned with the UN-NQAF and TG-0.7.

Phase 3: Integration and sustainability (ongoing)

The integration phase embeds ocean accounts into regular statistical production and active policy use. Key activities include:

• Regular production: Establish a regular production cycle for priority accounts, typically aligned with national accounts periodicity (annual or more frequent). Develop standard operating procedures, compilation guides, and automated data pipelines where possible.
• Full account suite: Work toward comprehensive coverage of the Ocean Accounts Framework, including combined presentations and thematic accounts (see TG-3.8). Compile sub-national accounts where policy demand exists (see TG-3.11 Sub-National Ocean Accounts).
• Policy integration: Embed account outputs in budget processes (TG-1.1), marine spatial planning, environmental impact assessment (TG-1.6), national development plans (TG-1.10), and international reporting commitments.
• Continuous improvement: Conduct regular readiness reassessments. Invest in methodological refinement. Participate in international technical networks and contribute to the development of global standards and guidance.

3.2.3 Aligning the pathway with readiness levels

The readiness assessment results inform where a country enters the pathway and how rapidly it can progress. Countries with established SEEA CF infrastructure and an active NSO statistics programme can generally expect a shorter progression path; countries building statistical capacity from a lower base will require more time, particularly for Phase 2 ecosystem account compilation.^[8]

Countries with existing SEEA implementation experience (whether for land, water, energy, or forest accounts) will often find that their readiness levels are higher across multiple dimensions, because institutional arrangements, data infrastructure, and human skills developed for other environmental-economic accounts are substantially transferable to ocean accounting.

3.3 Implementation Requirements Matrix

3.3.1 Purpose

This section provides a comprehensive requirements matrix that maps the institutional capacity, data infrastructure, and human skills needed across major ocean account types. The matrix serves as a diagnostic tool: by reading down a column for a particular account type, compilers can identify the full set of prerequisites; by reading across a row for a particular requirement category, they can see how requirements scale across account types and plan resources accordingly.

The matrix extends the "minimum data requirements" concept to encompass all three capacity dimensions, reflecting the principle that successful account compilation depends not only on data availability but equally on institutional arrangements and human expertise. This integrated view draws on the SEEA EA emphasis on the importance of reconciling and harmonising data from disparate sources (SEEA EA para. 14.13), which in practice requires institutional cooperation and multi-disciplinary skills.^[4:2]

3.3.2 Institutional capacity requirements

Lead-agency entries in the first row are illustrative; country governance choices in §3.5.2 take precedence.

The lead agency should have both the institutional authority to convene data-contributing agencies and a clear mandate to manage or report on the relevant resource or ecosystem. Where no single agency holds both, a joint coordination mechanism is appropriate (see §3.5.2 coordination models).

3.3.3 Data infrastructure requirements

3.3.4 Human skills requirements

3.3.5 Using the requirements matrix

The matrix should be used in conjunction with the readiness assessment (Section 3.1) as follows:

1. Identify target accounts: Based on the implementation pathway selected (Section 3.2) and policy priorities, identify which account types will be compiled in each phase.
2. Read requirements: For each target account type, read down the relevant column across all three requirement tables (institutional, data, human skills) to identify the full set of prerequisites.
3. Compare to readiness assessment: Map the identified requirements against the country's current readiness levels. Where requirements exceed current capacity, these represent gaps to be addressed.
4. Sequence investment: Use the comparison to sequence capacity-building investments. Some requirements are shared across multiple account types (e.g., spatial framework, inter-agency coordination) and should be prioritised as foundational investments that enable multiple downstream products.

Countries will note that requirements become progressively more demanding as they move from left to right across the matrix—from ocean economic accounts (which build substantially on existing SNA infrastructure) through ecosystem accounts (which require environmental science and geospatial capabilities) to social and governance accounts (which require additional survey and community engagement capabilities). This progression informs the sequencing recommendations in Section 3.2.

3.4 Human Capacity Requirements and Team Composition

3.4.1 Core team structure

Sustained ocean accounting requires a dedicated core team that combines expertise across multiple disciplines. The composition and size of this team will vary with the scope of the implementation programme, but the following structure provides a general model for countries at Phase 2 or later:

During Phase 1 (foundation), a smaller team of two to three staff may be sufficient, provided they have access to specialist advice from other agencies or international partners. The programme coordinator role is critical from the outset, as the primary challenge in Phase 1 is institutional coordination rather than technical compilation.

3.4.2 Extended expertise network

Beyond the core team, ocean accounting requires access to specialised expertise that is typically distributed across multiple agencies and institutions. Effective implementation depends on establishing an extended network. Table 3.4.2 below summarises the principal specialist roles and their contributions to ocean account compilation.

Building and maintaining this network is a function of the institutional arrangements discussed in Section 3.5. Countries should map existing expertise early in the implementation process and develop formal or informal mechanisms (secondments, advisory panels, memoranda of understanding) to access it on a sustained basis.

3.4.3 Capacity building strategy

A systematic approach to building and sustaining human capacity should address three time horizons:

Short-term: Targeted training for the core team in SEEA concepts, ocean accounting methods, and relevant tools. International training courses offered by UNSD, the GOAP partnership, and regional bodies provide foundational knowledge. Where possible, training should be combined with practical application to real data, through mentored pilot compilation exercises.

Medium-term: Deepening expertise through learning-by-doing, peer exchanges with more experienced countries, and participation in international expert networks. Staff should attend relevant conferences and workshops to stay current with methodological developments. Formal recognition of ocean accounting competencies within institutional human resource frameworks helps retain skilled staff.

Long-term: Embedding ocean accounting in university curricula and national training institutions ensures a pipeline of qualified graduates. Partnerships with universities for research projects, graduate internships, and joint publications support both knowledge generation and recruitment. Documentation of institutional knowledge—compilation manuals, standard operating procedures, and lesson-learned reports—protects against the loss of capacity through staff turnover.

The UN-NQAF emphasises that quality assurance of statistical outputs depends fundamentally on the competence and motivation of staff.^[3:1] Countries should therefore ensure that capacity building is not limited to technical training but also addresses career development, professional recognition, and working conditions that support retention.

3.5 Institutional Arrangements for Implementation

3.5.1 Why institutional arrangements matter

The SEEA EA recognises that compiling ecosystem accounts involves "the collation and integration of a wide variety of types of data, many of which may be unfamiliar to statistical offices" (SEEA EA, Chapter 15 research agenda).^[4:3] This makes institutional arrangements—the formal and informal structures through which agencies cooperate, share data, and coordinate production—a critical determinant of implementation success. Without effective institutional arrangements, even countries with strong data and skills will struggle to produce coherent, integrated accounts.

The 2025 SNA implementation strategy similarly identifies governance as a foundational element, recommending that countries "establish appropriate governance mechanisms to provide oversight" and "appropriate mechanisms to ensure coordination" across relevant agencies.^[1:2] For ocean accounting, the coordination challenge is amplified by the number and diversity of agencies involved: national statistical offices, environment ministries, fisheries agencies, maritime authorities, navy hydrographic offices, port authorities, research institutions, and geospatial agencies may all hold relevant data and expertise.

3.5.2 Coordination models

Countries have adopted a range of coordination models for environmental-economic accounting, each with distinct advantages and limitations. The choice of model should reflect the country's administrative structure, existing inter-agency mechanisms, and the political economy of ocean governance. TG-1.10 OA and National Planning Integration provides detailed guidance on coordination models and their relationship to national planning processes; this section provides a summary checklist for implementation readiness purposes.

The principal coordination models—NSO-led, environment agency-led, joint steering committee, and dedicated unit—are described with their advantages, limitations, and country examples in TG-1.10 OA and National Planning Integration. The critical success factors regardless of model are: (a) a clear mandate recognised by all participating agencies, (b) designated staff with allocated time, (c) formal data-sharing arrangements, and (d) recurrent funding that does not depend on project-based support alone.

Country examples illustrating each coordination model appear in the Section 5 case studies (TG-5.1 through TG-5.9). For instance, TG-5.6 (Australia—Geographe Marine Park) illustrates an NSO-led model; TG-5.1 (Indonesia) illustrates an environment agency-led approach. Compilers are encouraged to consult the relevant case study when selecting a coordination model.

3.5.3 Implementation readiness checklist for institutional arrangements

The following checklist summarises the institutional prerequisites for sustainable ocean accounting. Countries should aim to address all items by the end of Phase 1, though some (particularly items 7 and 8) may extend into Phase 2:

• [ ] 1. Lead agency designated: A single agency has been identified as the lead for ocean accounting, with endorsement from relevant senior officials.
• [ ] 2. Coordination mechanism established: An inter-agency coordination mechanism (committee, working group, or equivalent) has been formed with representation from the NSO, environment/ocean agency, and at least two major data providers.
• [ ] 3. Terms of reference agreed: The coordination mechanism has documented terms of reference specifying its mandate, membership, meeting frequency, and decision-making procedures.
• [ ] 4. Work programme adopted: A time-bound work programme has been adopted, specifying which accounts will be compiled, by whom, and on what timeline.
• [ ] 5. Data-sharing agreements executed: Formal or semi-formal data-sharing agreements are in place with at least the core data providers identified in the data inventory.
• [ ] 6. Core team assembled: A core team of at least two to three staff has been identified or recruited, with dedicated time allocated to ocean accounting.
• [ ] 7. Budget secured: Multi-year funding (covering Phase 1 in full, with a credible plan for transition to recurrent budget support) has been secured.
• [ ] 8. Quality assurance framework adopted: Quality assurance procedures consistent with TG-0.7 and the UN-NQAF have been documented and endorsed by the lead agency.
• [ ] 9. Stakeholder engagement plan developed: Key policy users have been identified, their information needs assessed, and a plan for regular engagement adopted.
• [ ] 10. International linkages established: The country has connected with the GOAP network, relevant UN regional commissions, and other international or regional support mechanisms.

For detailed guidance on coordination models, building domestic champions, and leveraging regional platforms, see TG-1.10 OA and National Planning Integration. For guidance on data coordination architectures specifically, see TG-4.7 National Data Coordination Architectures.

3.6 Country Commitment Framework

This section provides a commitment checklist for use at the readiness assessment stage—before implementation begins. It records political endorsement, resource commitment, and accountability mechanisms as preconditions for programme launch. For guidance on embedding ocean accounts in national planning frameworks, integrating accounts into budget cycles, and sustaining institutional commitment through the implementation lifecycle, see TG-1.10 OA and National Planning Integration.

3.6.1 From assessment to commitment

The readiness assessment and implementation pathway provide the analytical foundation for ocean accounting, but sustained implementation requires explicit commitment at the institutional and political level. Experience with SEEA implementation demonstrates that countries which formalise their commitment—through inclusion in national statistical plans, ministerial endorsements, or legislative provisions—achieve more durable results than those that rely on informal arrangements or project-based support alone.^[6:2]

The 2025 SNA implementation strategy underscores this point, recommending that "implementation of the 2025 SNA/BPM7 within a country should be built into the strategic plans of the national statistical office" with "strong visibility within the strategic plan, with concrete objectives and timing".^[1:3] The same principle applies to ocean accounting: embedding the commitment in official planning instruments signals institutional seriousness, creates accountability, and facilitates resource allocation.

3.6.2 Elements of a country commitment

A country commitment framework for ocean accounting should address the following elements:

Political endorsement: A statement of commitment from an appropriate authority (minister, chief statistician, or inter-ministerial body) that establishes ocean accounting as a national priority. This endorsement should reference the policy objectives that ocean accounts will support and the institutional arrangements that will be put in place.

Strategic plan integration: Inclusion of ocean accounting in the National Strategy for the Development of Statistics (NSDS) or equivalent national statistical plan. This ensures that ocean accounting is planned, resourced, and monitored alongside other statistical programmes. For countries that do not yet have an NSDS, ocean accounting can be included in the strategic plan of the lead agency.

Resource commitment: An explicit commitment to allocate resources (financial, human, and infrastructure) to ocean accounting. The commitment should distinguish between initial investment (which may draw on international technical assistance) and recurrent production costs (which should transition to domestic funding). A realistic budget estimate, informed by the qualitative requirements assessment in Section 3.3 and benchmarked against documented GOAP partner country experience, should accompany the resource commitment.

Timeline and milestones: A time-bound implementation plan with clear milestones aligned to the phased pathway in Section 3.2. Milestones should be specific, measurable, and linked to deliverables (e.g., "Complete data inventory by month 6 of Phase 1; publish first ecosystem extent account by end of Phase 1").

Accountability mechanism: A designated person or body responsible for monitoring implementation progress and reporting to the coordination mechanism and to senior leadership. Regular progress reporting (at least annually) ensures that implementation stays on track and that emerging challenges are addressed promptly.

3.6.3 Sustaining commitment through demonstrated value

Political and institutional commitment is more easily sustained when ocean accounts demonstrably contribute to policy and decision-making. Countries should therefore plan early wins—policy-relevant outputs that can be delivered in the early stages of the implementation programme. Phase 1 account types (see Section 3.2.2) naturally serve as early wins because they are feasible with existing data and are directly relevant to common policy processes.

These early products serve dual purposes: they provide immediate value to policy users, and they build the case for continued investment in more comprehensive and analytically powerful account products in later phases.

Countries should also invest in communication and outreach to ensure that account outputs reach their intended audiences. Account outputs achieve their policy value only when communicated effectively to decision-makers, as the SEEA EA emphasises (para. 14.10).^[4:4]

4. Limitations and Considerations

4.1 Context sensitivity

The readiness assessment framework and phased pathway presented in this Circular provide a general model that must be adapted to country-specific circumstances. Small island developing states, for example, may face distinctive challenges related to limited institutional capacity and data infrastructure but may also benefit from relatively simpler ocean geographies and strong policy demand. Large maritime nations may have abundant data and institutional resources but face coordination challenges across multiple agencies and levels of government. The framework should be applied with sufficient flexibility to accommodate these differences.

4.2 Assessment subjectivity

Self-assessment inherently involves subjective judgement. Scores may be influenced by the composition of the assessment team, institutional incentives, or incomplete knowledge of data holdings across agencies. Countries can mitigate this risk by including diverse perspectives in the assessment team, requiring evidence to support scores, and inviting external review (e.g., through GOAP peer review or technical assistance missions). The external review step described in §3.1.4 Step 6 provides a structured mechanism for obtaining independent validation.

4.3 Dynamic nature of readiness

Readiness is not a fixed state. Changes in government priorities, staffing, funding, or data availability can shift readiness levels in either direction. The assessment should therefore be treated as a living instrument that is updated regularly and used to inform adaptive management of the implementation programme, rather than a one-time diagnostic.

5. Acknowledgements

Authors: [To be confirmed]

Reviewers: [To be confirmed]

This Circular draws on the institutional and methodological frameworks established by the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting—Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA), the Strategy for Implementing 2025 SNA and BPM7, the UN National Quality Assurance Frameworks Manual, the Global Statistical Geospatial Framework (2nd edition), and NSDS guidelines. The guidance also benefits from the practical experience of GOAP partner countries in implementing ocean accounts across diverse institutional contexts.

6. References and Notes