OA and Marine Spatial Planning

1. Outcome

This Circular provides guidance on using Ocean Accounts to inform marine spatial planning (MSP), including spatial data requirements, ecosystem service mapping, and trade-off analysis. Readers will learn how the spatial architecture of Ocean Accounts--built on Basic Spatial Units (BSUs) and ecosystem extent accounts--provides a foundation for MSP processes. The Circular explains the information needs of marine spatial planners, demonstrates how ocean accounts data can support spatial allocation decisions, and outlines approaches for integrating accounts into planning workflows. Practitioners will gain practical understanding of how standardised ocean accounting can strengthen evidence-based marine governance.

MSP practitioners will be able to apply ocean accounts data to specific decision contexts including: delineating spatial zones based on ecosystem service supply and demand patterns; resolving conflicts between competing ocean uses (fisheries, aquaculture, shipping, offshore energy, tourism) by quantifying overlapping spatial footprints and ecosystem dependencies; prioritising areas for protection or restoration based on ecosystem condition and service flow accounts; and evaluating proposed spatial allocations through scenario analysis that projects changes in ecosystem extent, condition, economic outputs, and service flows. The guidance emphasises the accounts that provide spatial inputs to MSP--extent accounts for ecosystem mapping, condition accounts for zoning criteria, and supply-use tables for economic activity distribution--and demonstrates how these accounts enable spatially explicit analysis of trade-offs between environmental protection and economic development.

2. Requirements

• TG-0.1 General Introduction to Ocean Accounts -- provides foundational understanding of the Ocean Accounts Framework, including the spatial data framework and ecosystem asset concepts essential for marine spatial planning applications.

3. Guidance Material

3.1 What is marine spatial planning?

Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) is a public process of analysing 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^[1]. MSP emerged in the early 2000s as a response to growing conflicts between ocean uses and increasing recognition that sectoral management approaches were failing to address cumulative impacts on marine ecosystems. It represents a shift from reactive, sector-by-sector management toward proactive, integrated, and spatially explicit governance of ocean space.

MSP is fundamentally a spatial process. It requires decisions about where different activities may occur, where they should be excluded, and how multiple uses can be accommodated within the same marine area. These decisions must account for the distribution of marine ecosystems, the spatial footprint of human activities, and the connections between adjacent areas--both marine and terrestrial. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has been instrumental in promoting MSP globally, with the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission providing technical guidance on planning approaches^[2].

The legal foundation for MSP in most national contexts derives from the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which establishes the spatial zones within which coastal states exercise jurisdiction^[3]. These zones--including territorial seas (up to 12 nautical miles), exclusive economic zones (up to 200 nautical miles), and continental shelf areas--define the geographic scope within which national MSP processes operate. UNCLOS Articles 56 and 61-62 grant coastal states sovereign rights over natural resources and responsibility for conservation and management of living resources within their exclusive economic zone, providing the legal basis for spatial planning of resource use^[4].

The UN-GGIM Working Group on Marine Geospatial Information has identified MSP as a key application area requiring integrated marine geospatial information management^[5]. Effective MSP depends on the availability of consistent, interoperable spatial data across multiple domains--hydrographic, oceanographic, biological, and socioeconomic--that can be integrated to support evidence-based planning decisions.

3.2 Information needs for MSP

Marine spatial planners require comprehensive information to make informed decisions about the allocation of ocean space. The information needs of MSP can be organised into four broad categories: ecological, economic, social, and governance information.

Ecological information encompasses the distribution and condition of marine ecosystems, the habitats they provide, and the ecological processes that maintain ecosystem functioning. Planners need to know where different ecosystem types occur (coral reefs, seagrass meadows, mangroves, pelagic systems, benthic habitats), their current condition relative to reference states, and how they are connected through species movements, larval dispersal, and nutrient flows. The IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology provides a standardised classification of marine ecosystem functional groups that can support consistent spatial mapping across jurisdictions^[6].

Economic information includes the location and intensity of economic activities, their dependencies on marine ecosystem services, and their impacts on marine ecosystems. Key activities include fisheries (both commercial and artisanal), aquaculture, shipping and ports, offshore energy (oil, gas, wind, wave), mining, tourism and recreation, and coastal development. Planners need to understand not only where these activities occur but also their economic contributions and the ecosystem services they depend upon.

Social information captures the distribution of benefits and costs across different community groups, including indigenous and traditional uses, subsistence activities, recreational values, and cultural connections to marine places. Equity considerations--who benefits and who bears costs from different spatial allocations--are increasingly recognised as central to legitimate MSP processes.

Governance information documents existing management arrangements, protected area designations, customary tenure systems, and regulatory frameworks that constrain or enable spatial planning decisions. This includes understanding jurisdictional boundaries, existing use rights, and the institutional arrangements through which planning decisions are made and implemented.

A critical challenge for MSP is integrating these diverse information types within a coherent spatial framework. Data often come from different sources, use inconsistent spatial units, and lack the temporal alignment needed for integrated analysis. Ocean Accounts, through their application of accounting principles and spatial frameworks, offer a structured approach to addressing this challenge.

Table 1 maps the typical phases of an MSP process to their core information needs and identifies which Ocean Account components can supply the required data. The matrix demonstrates that accounts provide relevant inputs at every stage of the planning cycle, from initial baseline assessment through to long-term monitoring. Planners can use this matrix to identify which accounts to prioritise for compilation given the current stage of their MSP process and to communicate data requirements to the statistical agencies responsible for account production^[7].

Table 1: MSP planning phases, information needs, and Ocean Account sources

During the baseline assessment phase, planners draw primarily on ecosystem extent and condition accounts to establish the spatial distribution of marine ecosystems and their current ecological integrity. In the zoning design phase, the focus shifts to economic accounts overlaid with extent data to identify where human activities and ecosystems co-occur and where spatial conflicts are most acute. Impact prediction relies on service flow and condition accounts to model how proposed spatial allocations would alter ecosystem service delivery. Trade-off analysis requires monetary accounts and service flow accounts to quantify the costs and benefits of alternative zoning configurations in comparable terms. Finally, the monitoring and review phase draws on time-series accounts compiled across successive accounting periods to track whether plan objectives are being achieved and to inform adaptive management decisions.

3.3 Ocean accounts data for spatial planning

The Ocean Accounts Framework provides several components directly relevant to MSP. The spatial data framework, ecosystem extent accounts, ecosystem condition accounts, and ecosystem services accounts each contribute essential information for spatial planning decisions.

3.3.1 The spatial data framework

The spatial foundation of Ocean Accounts is built on Basic Spatial Units (BSUs)--the smallest units at which information is compiled and from which aggregations can be made^[8]. BSUs are defined to be exhaustive and mutually exclusive within the ecosystem accounting area (EAA), meaning that every location within the EAA is assigned to exactly one BSU. For marine applications, BSUs may be differentiated into coastal and marine units, with depth layers enabling three-dimensional representation of ocean systems.

In practice, BSU resolution for marine applications varies depending on national data infrastructure and planning objectives. Coastal zones with high-resolution satellite imagery and bathymetric surveys may support BSUs at scales of hundreds of metres to a few kilometres, while offshore and deep-sea areas--where observational data are sparse--may require coarser units of tens of kilometres or more. The SEEA EA does not prescribe a single optimal resolution; instead, it advises that the resolution should be sufficient to distinguish the ecosystem types relevant to the analysis while remaining feasible given available data^[9]. For MSP, the guiding principle is that BSU resolution should be fine enough to differentiate between distinct use zones and ecosystem types within the planning area. Countries beginning marine ecosystem accounting are encouraged to start with the best available resolution and refine it as data infrastructure improves. See TG-4.1 Remote Sensing and Geospatial Data for further guidance on spatial resolution considerations and remote sensing data sources for marine BSU delineation.

The delineation of marine BSUs presents specific challenges not encountered in terrestrial ecosystem accounting. Marine ecosystems are inherently three-dimensional, with distinct communities at different depth strata. Pelagic (water column) and benthic (seafloor) ecosystems may occupy the same horizontal location but represent distinct functional units. Finer resolution enables more precise spatial analysis but requires greater data inputs, and the choice of resolution should balance analytical needs with practical data constraints.

For MSP purposes, the BSU framework enables consistent spatial referencing across multiple data types. Economic activities, ecosystem types, and condition indicators can all be assigned to BSUs, allowing planners to examine how different variables co-occur and interact within the same spatial framework. This spatial consistency is a significant advance over traditional approaches where different datasets use incompatible spatial units.

3.3.2 Ecosystem extent accounts

Ecosystem extent accounts record the area of each ecosystem type within each BSU over time^[10]. For marine applications, extent accounts capture the spatial distribution of ecosystem types such as coral reefs, seagrass meadows, mangroves, kelp forests, coastal wetlands, and various pelagic and benthic marine ecosystems. The accounts track changes in extent through additions (ecosystem restoration, natural expansion) and reductions (ecosystem conversion, degradation).

Extent accounts provide MSP with baseline information on where different ecosystem types occur and how their distribution is changing. This information is essential for identifying areas of high ecological value, understanding patterns of ecosystem loss or recovery, and targeting conservation or restoration efforts. The ecosystem classification used in extent accounts should align with internationally recognised typologies--the IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology provides a hierarchical classification with realm (marine), biome (e.g., marine shelf), and ecosystem functional group (e.g., tropical coral reefs) levels that can be adapted to national contexts^[11].

Ecosystem extent by designated use

A particularly useful analytical output for MSP is the cross-tabulation of ecosystem extent by designated use category. This approach overlays ecosystem extent data with the spatial footprint of designated marine use zones to reveal how different ecosystem types are distributed across management and activity areas. The resulting matrix shows, for each ecosystem type, how much of its extent falls within fishery zones, port areas, tourism zones, marine protected areas, and areas not currently designated for specific uses. This information is directly relevant to spatial planning because it makes explicit the relationship between ecological assets and human use allocations--a relationship that is often obscured when ecological and economic data are compiled separately.

Table 2 illustrates this approach using simplified example data from an ESCAP pilot exercise in the Pacific region^[12]. The values represent counts of Basic Spatial Units (BSUs) in which each ecosystem type and use category co-occur.

Table 2: Example cross-tabulation of ecosystem extent by designated use category (ESCAP pilot exercise)

The cross-tabulation reveals several patterns relevant to spatial planning. In this example, coral reefs are predominantly located within marine protected areas, suggesting existing protection measures are well targeted to reef ecosystems. Mangroves, by contrast, are more evenly distributed across use categories--including port and tourism zones--indicating greater exposure to development pressures. Seagrass ecosystems have substantial extent outside any designated use area, which may represent either a gap in spatial planning coverage or areas where formal designation has not yet occurred. These patterns can inform decisions about where to extend protections, where to manage use conflicts, and where spatial allocations may need adjustment.

The table can be expanded to include additional ecosystem types--such as kelp forests, open marine pelagic systems, and deep-sea benthic ecosystems--and additional use categories--such as aquaculture zones, shipping lanes, mineral extraction areas, and offshore energy zones. For more precise spatial analysis, BSU counts can be replaced with area measurements in hectares (ha) or square kilometres (km²), enabling direct quantification of how much ecosystem extent is subject to each use designation. The table can also be extended over multiple accounting periods to reveal trends in spatial allocation and to assess whether designated uses are expanding into previously undesignated ecosystem areas. For compilation methodology, see TG-4.1 Remote Sensing and Geospatial Data on ecosystem extent mapping and BSU frameworks^[13].

3.3.3 Ecosystem condition accounts

Ecosystem condition accounts measure the quality or integrity of ecosystems relative to a reference condition^[14]. The SEEA EA Ecosystem Condition Typology (ECT) organises condition variables into six classes across three groups:

• Abiotic characteristics: physical state (e.g., sea surface temperature, salinity, current patterns, bathymetry) and chemical state (e.g., ocean pH, dissolved oxygen, nutrient concentrations)
• Biotic characteristics: compositional state (e.g., species diversity, community composition), structural state (e.g., coral cover, seagrass canopy height), and functional state (e.g., primary productivity, recruitment rates)
• Landscape/seascape characteristics: spatial configuration of habitat patches, connectivity between ecosystems, fragmentation

For MSP, condition accounts reveal not only where ecosystems are located but their ecological integrity. Areas of high condition may be priorities for protection, while degraded areas may be candidates for restoration or may be appropriate for activities with lower ecological sensitivity. Understanding spatial patterns of condition also helps planners anticipate how ecosystems may respond to different management scenarios. See TG-3.5 Ecosystem Condition Accounts for detailed guidance on compiling condition accounts using the ECT framework, including selection of condition variables, establishment of reference conditions, and aggregation methods for composite condition indices.

3.3.4 Ecosystem services accounts

Ecosystem services accounts record the contributions of ecosystems to human wellbeing and economic activity^[15]. Marine ecosystem services include:

• Provisioning services: wild fish and other aquatic biomass, genetic resources, water supply (for coastal desalination)
• Regulating and maintenance services: coastal protection from storms and erosion, global climate regulation through carbon sequestration and storage, water purification, nursery habitat for commercial species
• Cultural services: recreation, tourism, visual amenity, spiritual and symbolic values

Services accounts use a supply-use framework that identifies the ecosystem areas that generate services (service providing areas) and the locations where benefits are realised (service benefiting areas). This spatial articulation of services is directly relevant to MSP, which must consider how spatial allocations affect both service provision and benefit distribution.

For example, a mangrove ecosystem provides coastal protection services that benefit adjacent coastal communities. A spatial planning decision to permit aquaculture development in the mangrove area would reduce the ecosystem's extent, potentially diminishing its capacity to provide coastal protection. Ocean accounts quantify these relationships, enabling planners to assess trade-offs between economic development and ecosystem service maintenance.

3.4 Integrating accounts into MSP processes

The integration of Ocean Accounts into MSP processes can occur at multiple stages of the planning cycle: situation assessment, goal setting, spatial analysis, plan development, implementation, and monitoring.

3.4.1 Situation assessment

In the initial assessment phase, MSP processes characterise the current state of the marine area--its ecosystems, uses, and governance arrangements. Ocean accounts provide a structured compilation of this information within a consistent spatial framework. Ecosystem extent accounts show what ecosystems are present and where; condition accounts indicate their integrity; economic accounts document current activities and their spatial footprint; and services accounts reveal how ecosystems contribute to human wellbeing.

The accounting approach ensures completeness (all areas are covered), internal consistency (data are reconciled to common boundaries and classifications), and comparability (information follows standardised methods). These qualities address common challenges in situation assessments, where data gaps, inconsistent methods, and incompatible formats can undermine analytical quality.

3.4.2 Trade-off analysis

A central function of MSP is to navigate trade-offs between competing objectives--economic development versus environmental protection, one sector versus another, current uses versus future options. Ocean accounts support trade-off analysis by organising information within an integrated framework where relationships between variables can be examined.

The SEEA AFF notes that "data that are in a common framework can be used to assess trade-offs between alternative scenarios using various modelling techniques"^[16]. In the MSP context, this means that planners can examine how different spatial allocations would affect ecosystem extent, condition, and services, as well as economic outputs and social benefits. The accounting framework does not resolve trade-offs--these remain political decisions--but it provides a transparent evidence base for deliberation.

To illustrate, consider a simplified trade-off between designating a coastal area as an aquaculture zone versus maintaining it as an undesignated mangrove ecosystem. Using accounts data, planners can compare the economic output from aquaculture production (recorded in economic accounts) against the value of ecosystem services that the mangrove currently provides--including coastal storm protection (estimated via avoided damage costs), carbon sequestration (estimated via social cost of carbon), and nursery habitat supporting adjacent fisheries (estimated via the contribution of mangrove-dependent species to commercial catch). If the accounts show that the mangrove's annual service flows exceed the projected net returns from aquaculture, this evidence does not automatically resolve the allocation decision--distributional effects, employment, food security, and other policy considerations remain relevant--but it ensures that the ecological costs of conversion are visible and quantified within the same framework as the economic benefits. The accounting structure also allows planners to examine partial conversion scenarios, where a portion of the mangrove is converted while the remainder is protected, and to assess how service flows change at different conversion thresholds^[17].

3.4.3 Scenario development and evaluation

MSP typically involves developing and evaluating alternative spatial scenarios before selecting a preferred plan. Accounts data support scenario evaluation by enabling consistent assessment of how different configurations would affect key variables. For each scenario, planners can project:

• Changes in ecosystem extent (what areas would be converted or protected)
• Changes in ecosystem condition (how would ecosystem integrity be affected)
• Changes in ecosystem services (how would service flows be altered)
• Changes in economic outputs (how would production and employment be affected)
• Distribution of benefits and costs (who would gain and who would lose)

The accounting framework ensures that these projections are internally consistent--for example, that projected changes in ecosystem extent are reflected in projected changes in services.

3.4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

After plan adoption, ongoing monitoring is essential to assess whether the plan is achieving its objectives. Ocean accounts provide a framework for tracking key indicators over time. Extent accounts show whether ecosystems are being maintained or lost; condition accounts indicate whether ecosystem integrity is improving or declining; services accounts reveal whether ecosystem contributions to wellbeing are being sustained.

The temporal dimension of accounts--which record stocks and flows at regular intervals--aligns naturally with monitoring requirements. Annual or periodic account compilation creates time series that reveal trends and enable adaptive management responses.

3.5 Application procedure for MSP practitioners

This section provides a step-by-step procedure for MSP practitioners to incorporate ocean accounts data into spatial planning decision-making. The procedure assumes that extent, condition, and service flow accounts have been compiled (or are in the process of compilation) by the national statistical office or designated ocean accounting agency.

Step 1: Define the planning area and identify available accounts

The first step is to establish the geographic scope of the MSP process and identify which ocean accounts are available for that area. The planning area should align with jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., state or provincial waters, exclusive economic zone) and should be defined using the same coordinate reference system as the accounts. Contact the national statistical office or ocean accounting coordinator to determine:

• Which ecosystem types have been mapped within the planning area (extent accounts)
• What condition indicators have been compiled and at what spatial resolution (condition accounts)
• Which ecosystem services have been quantified, in physical or monetary terms (service flow accounts)
• What time periods are covered (annual accounts, multi-year series)
• What spatial resolution (BSU size and geometry) is used in the accounts

If accounts are not yet available for the planning area, this step should identify priority accounts to compile based on the MSP information needs identified in Table 1.

Step 2: Compile extent-by-use cross-tabulation

Using the ecosystem extent accounts and a spatial layer of current or proposed use designations (fishery zones, aquaculture zones, shipping lanes, protected areas, etc.), compile a cross-tabulation table similar to Table 2. This reveals the current spatial distribution of ecosystems across use categories and identifies:

• Ecosystem types with high exposure to extractive or development activities
• Ecosystem types with low representation in protected areas
• Areas where multiple uses overlap with high-value ecosystems
• Gaps where ecosystems are not currently subject to any designated use

This matrix forms the baseline for evaluating alternative spatial allocations.

Step 3: Identify spatial conflicts and opportunities

Overlay economic activity data from ocean accounts (fishing effort, aquaculture production, shipping traffic, tourism visitation) with ecosystem extent and condition data to identify spatial conflicts--locations where human activities and sensitive ecosystems co-occur--and spatial opportunities--locations where condition is high and activities are low, making them candidates for protection, or where condition is degraded and restoration efforts could yield co-benefits. For guidance on mapping economic activities to spatial units, see TG-3.3 Economic Activity Relevant to the Ocean, which provides methods for allocating supply-use table outputs to Basic Spatial Units.

Spatial conflicts may include:

• Fishing effort concentrated in areas with declining fish stocks (condition accounts show degradation)
• Aquaculture zones overlapping with mangrove or seagrass extent (extent accounts show habitat loss)
• Shipping lanes crossing marine protected areas or whale migration corridors (seascape connectivity variables from condition accounts)
• Offshore energy development in high-biodiversity areas (compositional state variables from condition accounts)

Step 4: Develop alternative spatial scenarios

Based on the conflict and opportunity analysis, develop two or more alternative spatial scenarios that differ in how ocean space is allocated. Each scenario should specify:

• Spatial boundaries of use zones (aquaculture, fishing, shipping, energy, tourism, protection)
• Management intensity within each zone (e.g., no-take protected area versus multi-use management)
• Areas designated for restoration or conservation priority

Scenarios should be designed to address identified conflicts while advancing planning objectives (e.g., protecting 30% of marine area, maintaining fisheries yield, supporting coastal livelihoods).

Step 5: Project scenario impacts using accounts

For each scenario, use the accounts to project changes in key variables. This requires translating spatial allocations into quantitative changes:

• Extent changes: If a scenario converts mangrove to aquaculture, estimate the hectares of mangrove extent lost and the corresponding increase in aquaculture area. Record these as reductions (conversions from mangrove) and additions (conversions to aquaculture).

• Condition changes: If a scenario establishes a no-take marine protected area, estimate the expected improvement in condition over time based on ecological recovery rates from the literature or from condition time series in similar protected areas. If a scenario permits increased fishing effort, estimate the expected decline in condition based on pressure-condition relationships.

• Service flow changes: If mangrove extent declines, estimate the change in coastal protection services (beneficiaries at risk), carbon sequestration (tonnes CO2), and nursery habitat (change in juvenile fish recruitment). Use the supply-use framework from ecosystem services accounts to allocate changes in service supply to benefiting areas and sectors.

• Economic output changes: Use economic accounts to estimate changes in production and employment from different spatial allocations. For example, if aquaculture zones expand, project increased aquaculture output; if fishing zones contract, project reduced catch (or, if condition improves, potentially increased sustainable yield over the medium term).

These projections need not be precise--MSP is inherently a forward-looking exercise with uncertainty--but they should be consistent within the accounting framework, ensuring that changes in one account are reflected in related accounts.

Step 6: Compare scenarios and present trade-offs

Present the projected impacts of each scenario in a summary table or dashboard that enables comparison across scenarios. Table 3 provides an illustrative template.

Table 3: Illustrative scenario comparison for MSP using ocean accounts data

This comparison reveals trade-offs across scenarios. Scenario A (Conservation Priority) achieves high protection coverage and improved ecosystem condition, supporting long-term service flows and tourism, but constrains aquaculture expansion. Scenario B (Development Priority) maximises aquaculture output but results in significant ecosystem extent loss, condition decline, and reduced service flows, with potential long-term costs to coastal protection and fisheries sustainability. Scenario C (Balanced Allocation) seeks a middle path, with moderate protection expansion, modest ecosystem improvements, and accommodation of some aquaculture growth.

The choice among scenarios remains a policy decision informed by national priorities, stakeholder input, and international commitments. The accounts provide the evidence base for deliberation by making trade-offs explicit and quantified.

Step 7: Select and implement a preferred scenario

Following stakeholder consultation and political decision-making, select a preferred scenario and translate it into spatial management regulations--zoning maps, use permits, protection designations, and monitoring requirements. The accounts compiled during the planning process establish the baseline against which future monitoring will measure progress.

Step 8: Monitor and revise using updated accounts

After plan implementation, continue compiling extent, condition, and service flow accounts at regular intervals (annually or biennially). Use the time-series data to assess whether the spatial plan is achieving its intended outcomes:

• Are protected ecosystems maintaining or improving condition?
• Are use zones delivering expected economic outputs without exceeding sustainable limits?
• Are service flows to beneficiaries being sustained or enhanced?

Where monitoring reveals deviations from expected trajectories, apply adaptive management--adjusting use intensity, expanding or contracting zones, or implementing restoration interventions--informed by updated accounts data. See TG-1.3 Marine Spatial Management (including MPAs) for detailed guidance on using accounts for MPA effectiveness monitoring and adaptive management.

3.6 Case examples

3.6.1 Ecosystem extent mapping for spatial zoning

Several countries have applied ecosystem extent mapping approaches consistent with SEEA EA principles to support marine spatial planning. Australia's National Marine Ecosystem Classification provides a hierarchical classification of marine ecosystems that can be mapped at national scales and used to ensure that MSP processes consider the full range of ecosystem types within their jurisdiction^[18]. Similarly, the European Union's MAES (Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services) initiative has developed marine ecosystem maps that inform spatial planning under the EU Maritime Spatial Planning Directive^[19].

These mapping efforts demonstrate the practical application of extent accounting concepts to MSP. By establishing consistent ecosystem classifications and spatial representations, they enable planners to identify where particular ecosystem types occur, assess their representation within existing protected areas, and target spatial allocations to achieve conservation objectives.

3.6.2 Ecosystem services valuation for spatial allocation

The valuation component of Ocean Accounts--while acknowledged to have methodological challenges--can inform MSP decisions by making explicit the economic values at stake in different spatial allocations. Coral reef ecosystems, for example, provide coastal protection services whose value can be estimated using avoided damage cost methods, and tourism services whose value can be estimated from visitor expenditure data^[20].

When these values are mapped spatially, planners can identify high-value service areas and assess how different development scenarios would affect aggregate service values. While such analyses should not be the sole basis for planning decisions, they provide useful information for deliberation, particularly in contexts where ecosystem service values might otherwise be overlooked.

3.6.3 Marine Protected Area planning

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) represent a specific application of spatial planning where Ocean Accounts data are directly relevant. MPA network design requires information on:

• Ecosystem representation (are all ecosystem types included?)
• Ecosystem condition (are areas of high integrity prioritised?)
• Connectivity (are areas connected to allow species movement?)
• Threat exposure (are areas exposed to pressures that protection can address?)

Extent and condition accounts provide systematic data for addressing these questions. Several Pacific Island countries have used ecosystem accounting approaches to inform MPA network design, integrating ecological data with socioeconomic information on fishing effort and community dependence to identify areas where protection can achieve conservation benefits while minimising social costs^[21].

The ESCAP Ocean Accounts programme supported several Pacific Island countries--including Samoa, Fiji, and Vanuatu--in compiling ecosystem extent and condition data for marine areas using SEEA EA-consistent methods. While these pilot exercises were primarily designed to demonstrate the feasibility of ocean accounting in data-limited Pacific contexts, the resulting spatial datasets have direct applicability to MPA network planning. In particular, the combination of ecosystem extent maps with use-intensity data (such as fishing effort and tourism activity) illustrates how accounting outputs can inform spatial prioritisation for conservation. The approach aligns with the broader Pacific Islands Regional MPA Framework, which calls for systematic representation of marine ecosystem types across national MPA networks. As ocean accounting capacity matures in the region, the accounts are expected to provide increasingly detailed inputs for MPA design, including time-series data on ecosystem condition that can inform adaptive management of existing protected areas. For detailed guidance on using accounts to monitor MPA effectiveness and track ecosystem recovery, see TG-1.3 Marine Spatial Management (including MPAs).

3.6.4 Resolving spatial conflicts between offshore energy and fisheries

Offshore renewable energy development creates spatial conflicts with existing ocean uses, particularly fisheries and shipping. In the North Sea, multiple countries have applied spatial analysis combining fisheries effort data (from vessel monitoring systems), wind farm footprints, and ecosystem condition indicators to identify areas where wind energy development would minimise displacement of fishing activity while avoiding high-biodiversity habitats^[22]. While not always framed explicitly as ocean accounts, these analyses apply accounting principles--spatially explicit activity data, ecosystem condition baselines, and trade-off assessment--to inform spatial allocation decisions. As offshore wind capacity expands globally, integrating fisheries accounts, energy accounts, and ecosystem condition accounts within a common spatial framework will become increasingly important for resolving use conflicts. For detailed guidance on accounting for offshore energy activities and their spatial interactions with marine ecosystems, see TG-6.9 Offshore Energy Thematic Methods.

4. Acknowledgements

This Circular has been approved for public circulation and comment by the GOAP Technical Experts Group in accordance with the Circular Publication Procedure.

Authors: Mitchell Lyons (GOAP Secretariat), Thauan Santos

Reviewers: Jordan Gacutan (GOAP Secretariat), Laura Friedrich

5. References