Traditional Knowledge

1. Outcome

This Circular provides guidance on incorporating traditional knowledge into ocean accounts, addressing the sensitive methodological and ethical issues that arise when working with Indigenous and local knowledge systems. Readers will understand principles for respectful engagement with Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs), approaches for integrating traditional knowledge with scientific data, and the ethical frameworks that must govern such integration. The guidance recognizes that methods for incorporating traditional knowledge into statistical frameworks are still developing and require particular sensitivity to cultural protocols, intellectual property rights, and the self-determination of knowledge holders.

Important Note: This Circular addresses an emerging and sensitive area of ocean accounting practice. Traditional knowledge systems are diverse, context-specific, and embedded in cultural frameworks that may not align neatly with standardized accounting approaches. The guidance provided here should be understood as provisional principles rather than prescriptive methods, and practitioners should expect that approaches will continue to evolve as experience accumulates and as Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities articulate their own frameworks for knowledge sharing. Each engagement with traditional knowledge holders must be tailored to the specific cultural context and conducted with deep respect for the rights and protocols of knowledge-holding communities. No single set of guidelines can substitute for the sustained, context-sensitive relationship building that ethical traditional knowledge work demands.

1.1 Why traditional knowledge matters for ocean accounting

Ocean accountants need to engage with traditional knowledge for three principal reasons:

First, gap-filling in data-sparse regions. Many coastal and marine areas lack adequate scientific monitoring infrastructure, particularly in remote islands, polar seas, and developing coastal states. Traditional knowledge holders who have sustained relationships with these environments over generations possess observational knowledge that can inform ecosystem condition assessments, document historical baselines, and identify environmental changes not captured by sparse monitoring networks. For example, Indigenous observations of sea ice dynamics in Arctic marine areas have extended observational records by decades, while Pacific Island community knowledge of reef condition provides spatially detailed information unavailable from satellite remote sensing alone^[1]. This gap-filling function is particularly relevant to ecosystem condition accounts (TG-2.3 Ocean Condition Accounts) and biophysical indicator selection (TG-2.1 Biophysical Indicators).

Second, validation and contextualization of scientific data. Traditional knowledge provides independent lines of evidence that can validate or contextualize remote sensing classifications, model outputs, and short-term field surveys. When traditional ecological knowledge converges with scientific monitoring, confidence in both knowledge systems is strengthened. When they diverge, this signals areas warranting further investigation and may reveal phenomena not captured by conventional monitoring^[2]. Cross-validation is particularly valuable for ecosystem extent accounts where benthic habitat classifications must be validated against on-water observations.

Third, spatial unit delineation informed by tenure systems. Indigenous marine tenure systems often reflect ecologically meaningful boundaries developed through generations of resource management practice. In some contexts, customary marine areas provide more ecologically coherent spatial units for ecosystem accounting than administrative boundaries or uniform grid cells. Documentation of customary tenure also supports governance accounts (TG-3.7 Governance Accounts), enabling understanding of de facto management arrangements that shape ecosystem outcomes.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) Target 21 calls for ensuring that "the best available data, information and knowledge are accessible to decision makers, practitioners and the public to guide effective and equitable governance, integrated and participatory management of biodiversity"^[3]. Traditional knowledge is explicitly recognized as essential to achieving this target. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development similarly recognizes the role of Indigenous peoples in sustainable development, including SDG Target 2.3 which calls for doubling "the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers"^[4]. For ocean accounting, Target 14.b emphasizes providing "access for small-scale artisanal fishers to marine resources and markets," an objective that requires understanding the traditional knowledge and customary practices that underpin small-scale fisheries.

This Circular builds upon the broader framework for social accounting established in TG-3.5 Social Accounts, which addresses wellbeing, equity, and qualitative approaches for documenting human dimensions of ocean-society relationships. The governance dimensions of traditional knowledge systems connect to the institutional documentation frameworks in TG-3.7 Governance Accounts. Data collection methods involving community participation are addressed in TG-4.4 Citizen Science and Community-Based Monitoring, which provides complementary guidance on working with non-official data sources. The accounts developed using this guidance may inform thematic accounts for coral reefs (TG-6.1 Coral Reef Accounts), mangroves (TG-6.2 Mangrove Accounts), and seagrass ecosystems (TG-6.3 Seagrass Accounts), where traditional knowledge of ecosystem condition and change can complement scientific monitoring.

2. Requirements

• TG-0.1 General Introduction to Ocean Accounts -- provides foundational understanding of Ocean Accounts components and the relationship between environmental and economic accounting frameworks.

• TG-3.5 Social Accounts -- addresses the broader framework for documenting human dimensions of ocean-society relationships, including wellbeing, equity, and qualitative approaches that complement this guidance on traditional knowledge.

3. Guidance Material

3.1 Principles for Engagement

Engagement with Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) for the purpose of incorporating traditional knowledge into ocean accounts must be grounded in respect for human rights, recognition of Indigenous peoples' self-determination, and adherence to established international principles. The guidance in this section draws on frameworks established by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Agreement, and the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD). It is supplemented by guidance from the statistical community, including the United Nations Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics, which affirm that statistical agencies should coordinate with other agencies to achieve consistency and efficiency in the statistical system^[5], and the UNSD guidance on strengthening the integration of diverse knowledge systems in official statistics^[6].

3.1.1 The significance of traditional knowledge holders

The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures emphasizes the particular importance of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in nature-related assessment. The TNFD notes that "at least 28% of the world's land surface is currently owned, managed, used or occupied by Indigenous Peoples. These Indigenous lands include some of the most ecologically intact landscapes and seascapes on the planet and roughly 40% of all terrestrial protected areas and ecologically intact landscapes"^[7]. While these statistics focus on terrestrial areas, analogous relationships exist in marine contexts, where coastal Indigenous peoples and local fishing communities often hold detailed knowledge of marine ecosystems developed over generations of interaction with their environments.

Traditional knowledge encompasses^[8]:

• Observational knowledge of species, habitats, and ecological relationships accumulated over generations
• Understanding of seasonal patterns, environmental change, and ecosystem dynamics
• Practices for sustainable resource use developed through long experience
• Governance systems for managing common resources and resolving conflicts
• Spiritual and cultural relationships with marine environments
• Oral histories documenting environmental change over time

This knowledge can provide insights not available from short-term scientific monitoring, particularly regarding long-term baselines, rare events, and relationships that require sustained local observation to understand. For ocean accounting, traditional knowledge may inform ecosystem condition assessments (see TG-2.3 Ocean Condition Accounts), ecosystem service identification (see TG-2.4 Ecosystem Goods and Services), and understanding of human-ocean relationships that are not captured in standard economic or environmental data.

Experience from multiple regions demonstrates the practical value of traditional knowledge for marine ecosystem assessment. In the Pacific Islands, customary marine tenure systems have long provided the basis for community-based fisheries management, and traditional ecological knowledge of reef systems has informed both national conservation strategies and regional environmental monitoring^[9]. In the Arctic, Indigenous observations of sea ice dynamics, marine mammal behaviour, and shifting species distributions have contributed to understanding environmental change in ways that complement satellite-based monitoring^[10]. In Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean, local fisher knowledge of spawning aggregations, seasonal current patterns, and habitat changes has contributed to marine spatial planning and stock assessments^[11]. These examples illustrate that traditional knowledge integration is not merely aspirational but has yielded practical contributions where institutional arrangements support respectful engagement.

3.1.2 International frameworks for engagement

Several international instruments establish the framework for engagement with traditional knowledge holders:

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP): Adopted in 2007, UNDRIP affirms Indigenous peoples' rights to self-determination, to maintain their cultural practices and institutions, and to control their traditional knowledge. Article 31 states that "Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions"^[12]. Article 26 recognizes Indigenous peoples' rights to "the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired"^[13].

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD): Article 8(j) requires parties to "respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity"^[14]. The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing establishes specific requirements for access to traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources, including requirements for prior informed consent and fair and equitable benefit sharing^[15].

Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: Target 21 specifically calls for ensuring "the full, equitable, inclusive, effective and gender-responsive representation and participation in decision-making, and access to justice and information related to biodiversity by indigenous peoples and local communities, respecting their cultures and their rights over lands, territories, resources, and traditional knowledge"^[16]. Target 3 calls for conserving at least 30% of marine and coastal areas "recognizing indigenous and traditional territories, where applicable"^[17]. Target 5 calls for ensuring sustainable use of wild species "while respecting and protecting customary sustainable use by indigenous peoples and local communities"^[18].

ILO Convention 169: The Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention establishes that governments shall "consult the peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative institutions, whenever consideration is being given to legislative or administrative measures which may affect them directly"^[19].

Agreement on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement): The 2023 BBNJ Agreement, adopted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, includes provisions specifically relevant to traditional knowledge in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Article 7 provides that the agreement shall be interpreted and applied in a manner that "does not undermine relevant legal instruments and frameworks and relevant global, regional and sectoral bodies" and recognizes the "relevant traditional knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local communities." Part II of the agreement, on marine genetic resources and benefit sharing, establishes that "the collection of marine genetic resources of areas beyond national jurisdiction shall be ... with due regard for the interests and rights of ... Indigenous Peoples and local communities"^[20]. For ocean accounting that extends to high seas areas, these provisions establish the principle that traditional knowledge must be respected even in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

3.1.3 Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)

Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is the foundational principle for engagement with Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities regarding the use of their traditional knowledge. The TNFD recommends that organizations describe "whether engagement has been based on free, prior and informed consultation and participation and how Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) has been obtained"^[21].

FPIC requires that consent be:

• Free: Given voluntarily, without coercion, intimidation, or manipulation
• Prior: Sought sufficiently in advance of any activities, allowing adequate time for consultation and decision-making according to the community's own processes
• Informed: Based on full disclosure of the purpose, nature, and implications of the proposed engagement, including potential risks and benefits
• Consent: Documented agreement from the appropriate decision-making bodies according to the community's own governance structures

For ocean accounting purposes, FPIC should be sought before:

• Collecting traditional knowledge for use in accounts
• Integrating traditional knowledge with scientific data
• Publishing or sharing information derived from traditional knowledge
• Making decisions that affect marine areas of cultural significance

FPIC is not a one-time event but an ongoing process. Communities may withdraw consent, and continued engagement requires continued communication and agreement.

The process for obtaining FPIC should be documented and included in the metadata for any accounts that incorporate traditional knowledge. This documentation supports the transparency requirements that apply across all ocean accounting work, as described in TG-0.7 Quality Assurance.

3.1.4 Principles for respectful engagement

Building on the international frameworks, practitioners should adhere to the following principles when engaging with traditional knowledge holders:

Recognize community protocols: Each community has its own protocols for sharing knowledge, including who may speak on behalf of the community, what knowledge may be shared, and under what conditions. Practitioners must invest time in understanding and respecting these protocols before seeking to access traditional knowledge^[22].

Build long-term relationships: Meaningful engagement with traditional knowledge holders cannot be achieved through brief consultations or one-time data collection exercises. Practitioners should invest in building sustained relationships based on trust and mutual benefit^[23]. This principle of sustained engagement distinguishes traditional knowledge work from standard data collection and has implications for resource allocation and institutional commitment.

Respect knowledge ownership: Traditional knowledge belongs to the communities that hold it, not to researchers or agencies that document it. Even when knowledge is shared, intellectual property rights remain with the knowledge holders^[24]. This principle applies regardless of whether knowledge has been formally registered or protected under intellectual property law.

Ensure equitable benefit sharing: Communities should benefit from the use of their knowledge, whether through direct compensation, capacity building, access to results, or other forms of reciprocity^[25]. The TNFD recommends describing "how equitable Access and Benefit Sharing has been attained, particularly as it relates to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities"^[26]. Benefit sharing connects to the broader equity considerations addressed in TG-3.5 Social Accounts, Section 3.2.

Support community priorities: Engagement should respond to community priorities and concerns, not solely to the data needs of accounting agencies. Where possible, accounting efforts should be designed to serve community information needs as well as national statistical requirements.

3.2 Knowledge Integration Approaches

The integration of traditional knowledge with scientific data and accounting frameworks presents significant methodological challenges. Traditional knowledge is typically embedded in holistic worldviews, transmitted orally, and expressed in languages and concepts that may not have direct equivalents in Western scientific frameworks. Integration approaches must respect the integrity of traditional knowledge while enabling meaningful contribution to ocean accounts.

Experience to date suggests that successful integration has been achieved through iterative, relationship-based approaches rather than through standardized data collection protocols. In Fiji, community-based ecosystem assessments have combined traditional indicators of reef health (e.g., presence of particular species, water clarity at specific times of year) with scientific monitoring data to produce more comprehensive condition accounts^[27]. In the Torres Strait, collaborative mapping of sea country has combined Indigenous spatial knowledge with satellite-derived habitat maps to improve the accuracy of ecosystem extent accounts^[28]. These examples illustrate the potential for traditional knowledge to contribute practically to ocean accounting compilations, while also demonstrating that integration methods must be adapted to each context. The GOAP Secretariat may wish to facilitate documentation of additional case studies as implementation experience accumulates.

3.2.1 Complementary rather than supplementary

Traditional knowledge should not be viewed merely as a data source to fill gaps in scientific monitoring. The SEEA Ecosystem Accounting framework recognizes that cultural services involve "experiential and intangible services related to the perceived or actual qualities of ecosystems whose existence and functioning contribute to a range of cultural benefits"^[29]. Traditional knowledge can inform understanding of these experiential and intangible dimensions that may not be captured by conventional measurement approaches.

Approaches to integration include:

Parallel documentation: Traditional knowledge and scientific data can be documented in parallel, each using methods appropriate to its nature, with explicit acknowledgment of their different epistemological foundations. This approach respects the integrity of each knowledge system while enabling comparison and synthesis.

Cross-validation: Where traditional knowledge and scientific monitoring address similar questions (e.g., species abundance, environmental change), cross-validation can strengthen confidence in findings. Convergent results from different knowledge systems provide more robust evidence than either alone. Divergent results may indicate important phenomena that warrant further investigation^[30].

Gap identification: Traditional knowledge can help identify phenomena, relationships, or changes that are not captured by existing monitoring, prompting development of new scientific approaches. Traditional knowledge holders often have long-term observational baselines that extend well beyond the period of scientific record. The SEEA biophysical modelling guidance notes that "using a more recent reference condition (e.g. 1990) is another option" but acknowledges that this "fails to recognize the management of indigenous peoples"^[31]. Traditional knowledge can extend baselines to pre-industrial or pre-colonial conditions, though such historical reconstruction requires careful methodological consideration. This is particularly relevant for ecosystem condition accounts, where understanding of historical baselines is essential (see TG-2.1 Biophysical Indicators).

Contextualization: Traditional knowledge can provide essential context for interpreting scientific data, including understanding of historical conditions, ecosystem variability, and local factors that affect observations.

Table 3.6.1: Traditional knowledge integration principles

3.2.2 Co-production approaches

Knowledge co-production involves the collaborative generation of knowledge by scientists and traditional knowledge holders working together as partners. Co-production goes beyond consultation or data extraction to involve Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in all stages of the research process, from question formulation to interpretation of results^[32].

Key elements of co-production include:

Joint problem definition: Research questions and accounting priorities should be developed collaboratively, reflecting both scientific interests and community priorities. Communities may identify questions that would not occur to outside researchers.

Multiple ways of knowing: Co-production approaches acknowledge that traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge represent different but equally valid ways of understanding the world. Neither is simply validated by the other; both contribute distinct insights.

Shared governance: Decision-making about research design, data management, and dissemination should be shared between scientific and community partners, often formalized through research agreements or memoranda of understanding.

Two-way capacity building: Co-production benefits from investment in capacity building that flows in both directions, with scientists learning from knowledge holders and communities gaining skills in documentation, analysis, and communication.

For ocean accounting, co-production approaches may be particularly valuable for:

• Identifying culturally significant marine areas and their management needs
• Understanding ecosystem services that have cultural or spiritual dimensions
• Documenting long-term environmental change
• Developing locally appropriate indicators of ecosystem condition

These applications connect to the indicator development processes described in TG-2.1 Biophysical Indicators.

3.2.3 Documentation methods

Documentation of traditional knowledge requires methods that are appropriate to its oral and contextual nature. Standard survey instruments developed for scientific data collection may be inappropriate for traditional knowledge, which is often embedded in narratives, ceremonies, and practices rather than expressed as discrete data points.

Appropriate methods may include:

Participatory mapping: Collaborative mapping exercises can document spatial knowledge about marine areas, including locations of cultural significance, seasonal resource availability, and areas of environmental change. Maps can be annotated with associated knowledge and stories^[33]. For guidance on spatial frameworks in ocean accounting, see TG-0.3 Spatial and Temporal Frameworks.

Oral history documentation: Structured or semi-structured interviews can document knowledge holders' observations and experiences, preserving the narrative context that gives meaning to the knowledge.

Participant observation: Extended engagement with communities can enable understanding of how traditional knowledge is embedded in practice, revealing knowledge that may not be articulated in response to direct questions.

Community-led documentation: Communities may prefer to document their own knowledge using methods they control, sharing results with accounting agencies according to agreed protocols.

All documentation should include clear provenance information, noting who provided the knowledge, under what circumstances, and what conditions govern its use. This approach aligns with the quality assurance principles described in TG-0.7 Quality Assurance and the guidance on non-official data sources in TG-4.4 Citizen Science and Community-Based Monitoring.

3.2.4 Data sovereignty and ownership

Data sovereignty refers to the right of communities to control data about themselves, their lands, and their knowledge. For Indigenous Peoples, data sovereignty is an expression of self-determination, enabling communities to make decisions about what data are collected, how they are stored, and who can access them^[34].

The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance, developed by the Global Indigenous Data Alliance, provide a comprehensive framework for operationalizing data sovereignty in research and statistical contexts. The four principles are^[35]:

• Collective benefit: Data ecosystems should be designed and function in ways that enable Indigenous Peoples to derive benefit from the data. This includes supporting Indigenous governance, self-determination, and collective wellbeing.
• Authority to control: Indigenous Peoples' rights and interests in Indigenous data must be recognized, and their authority to control such data must be empowered. This includes recognizing Indigenous governance structures and self-determined governance processes.
• Responsibility: Those working with Indigenous data have a responsibility to share how those data are used to support Indigenous Peoples' self-determination and collective benefit. This requires building respectful relationships and expanding the use of data for Indigenous innovation.
• Ethics: Indigenous Peoples' rights and wellbeing should be the primary concern at all stages of the data life cycle. This includes minimizing harm, maximizing benefit, and prioritizing justice in relation to Indigenous values and collective interests.

The CARE Principles complement the FAIR Principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) that guide open data practice more broadly. For ocean accounting, both sets of principles should be considered, recognizing that open data objectives must be balanced with Indigenous data sovereignty rights.

Principles for data sovereignty in ocean accounting include:

Community ownership: Data derived from traditional knowledge remain the property of the knowledge-holding community, even when documented by external parties. Agencies should not claim ownership of traditional knowledge they have recorded.

Control over access: Communities should determine who can access data derived from their traditional knowledge and under what conditions. This may include restrictions on commercial use, requirements for attribution, or limitations on sharing with third parties.

Capacity to benefit: Communities should have the capacity to access and use their own data for their own purposes, including through provision of data in accessible formats and support for community data management.

Right to refuse: Communities retain the right to refuse to share knowledge, to withdraw previously shared knowledge from use, or to restrict uses they have not explicitly authorized.

Practical implementation of data sovereignty may involve:

• Research agreements that specify data ownership, access, and use conditions
• Community-controlled data repositories where traditional knowledge is stored under community governance
• Tiered access systems that distinguish between knowledge that can be shared publicly and knowledge that is restricted
• Ongoing community review of how their knowledge is being used in accounts

These considerations connect to the broader data infrastructure for ocean accounting described in Section 4 of the Technical Guidance.

3.3 Ethical Considerations

Working with traditional knowledge in ocean accounting raises ethical considerations that extend beyond standard research ethics protocols. These considerations arise from the colonial history of research with Indigenous peoples, the ongoing power imbalances between scientific institutions and local communities, and the distinctive characteristics of traditional knowledge as a form of cultural property.

3.3.1 Historical context and power relations

Scientific research has historically extracted knowledge from Indigenous peoples and local communities without consent, attribution, or benefit sharing. This extractive approach has contributed to the erosion of traditional knowledge systems and to distrust between communities and research institutions. Practitioners working with traditional knowledge must acknowledge this history and actively work to establish different relationships based on equity and respect^[36].

The TNFD framework recognizes that human rights considerations are integral to nature-related assessment, calling for organizations to "describe the organisation's human rights policies and engagement activities, and oversight by the board and management, with respect to Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities, affected and other stakeholders"^[37]. This recognition that engagement with IPLCs is a human rights issue, not merely a methodological one, should inform all traditional knowledge work in ocean accounting.

Power imbalances may manifest in:

• Whose questions drive research agendas
• Whose standards define data quality
• Who controls how knowledge is interpreted and presented
• Who benefits from the use of traditional knowledge
• Whose voices are heard in decision-making

Addressing these imbalances requires sustained attention and willingness to share power and resources with community partners. This connects to the equity considerations addressed in TG-3.5 Social Accounts, Section 3.2, which discusses distributional dimensions of ocean benefits and burdens.

3.3.2 Avoiding misappropriation

Misappropriation of traditional knowledge occurs when knowledge is used in ways that violate community protocols, infringe intellectual property rights, or harm the interests of knowledge holders. The history of traditional knowledge misappropriation demonstrates the serious consequences that can result. In the marine context, the documentation and publication of traditional fishing grounds and sacred marine sites without community consent has in some cases led to increased external pressure on these areas, undermining the very management systems that traditional knowledge holders sought to protect^[38]. In other instances, traditional ecological knowledge about medicinal marine organisms has been used in commercial bioprospecting without acknowledgment or benefit sharing. These patterns underscore the importance of robust safeguards at every stage of engagement.

Practices that may constitute misappropriation include:

• Using traditional knowledge without consent
• Failing to acknowledge the source of traditional knowledge
• Using knowledge for purposes beyond those consented to
• Sharing knowledge with third parties without authorization
• Claiming intellectual property rights over traditional knowledge
• Commercializing knowledge without benefit sharing

To avoid misappropriation, practitioners should:

• Obtain FPIC before accessing traditional knowledge
• Document the conditions under which knowledge was shared
• Restrict use of knowledge to authorized purposes
• Maintain attribution in all derived products
• Share benefits equitably with knowledge-holding communities
• Establish clear agreements regarding intellectual property

3.3.3 Protecting sacred and sensitive knowledge

Traditional knowledge often includes information that is sacred, secret, or sensitive. Some knowledge may be restricted to particular individuals, clans, or genders; some may be associated with ceremonies that should not be discussed publicly; some may relate to sites or practices that communities wish to protect from outside attention.

Practitioners must be aware that:

• Not all traditional knowledge is intended for sharing
• Communities may not disclose the existence of restricted knowledge
• Knowledge shared may come with conditions that are not fully articulated
• Documentation and publication can harm knowledge that should remain oral

Approaches for protecting sensitive knowledge include:

• Asking explicitly what knowledge may be documented and shared
• Respecting indications that some topics are not open for discussion
• Establishing review processes where communities approve all uses of their knowledge before publication
• Creating restricted-access categories for sensitive information in data management systems
• Being willing to exclude certain knowledge from accounts when sharing would violate protocols

This may mean that some aspects of human-ocean relationships cannot be documented in published accounts. Practitioners should accept these limitations as necessary for ethical practice rather than viewing them as obstacles to complete accounting.

3.3.4 Maintaining cultural integrity

Integration of traditional knowledge into accounting frameworks risks decontextualizing knowledge, extracting discrete data points from the holistic worldviews that give them meaning. This decontextualization can distort the knowledge and obscure the cultural frameworks that are essential to understanding it.

To maintain cultural integrity:

• Present traditional knowledge in ways that preserve its context and meaning
• Avoid forcing traditional knowledge into categories derived from Western scientific frameworks when these categories are inappropriate
• Include narrative and qualitative elements alongside quantified data (see the qualitative approaches discussed in TG-3.5 Social Accounts, Section 3.4)
• Acknowledge the limitations of accounting frameworks in representing traditional knowledge
• Involve knowledge holders in reviewing how their knowledge is presented

The SEEA EA recognizes that ecosystem accounting "involves a progression of understanding and analysis. The compilation of an account should be seen as a step in this process, not the end point"^[39]. This recognition that accounts are part of an ongoing process of learning is particularly relevant for traditional knowledge, where understanding deepens through sustained engagement over time.

3.4 Compilation Procedure for Integrating Traditional Knowledge

This section provides step-by-step guidance on the compilation process for integrating traditional knowledge into ocean accounts. The procedure follows a phased approach that prioritizes relationship-building, ethical review, and quality assurance for mixed-method data.

3.4.1 Phase 1: Pre-engagement assessment (Months 1-3)

Step 1.1: Identify relevant communities and knowledge holders

Review the ecosystem accounting area to identify Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities with traditional knowledge relevant to the marine areas under consideration. Sources may include:

• Existing literature on Indigenous marine tenure systems
• Government records of customary fishing rights
• NGO documentation of community-based conservation
• Previous ethnographic or anthropological research

Step 1.2: Assess institutional readiness

Evaluate whether the compiling agency has:

• Sufficient resources for sustained engagement (minimum 12-18 months)
• Personnel with cultural competence or willingness to develop it
• Leadership commitment to ethical engagement principles
• Budget for fair compensation of knowledge holders
• Data management systems capable of implementing data sovereignty protocols

If institutional readiness is inadequate, defer traditional knowledge engagement until capacity can be strengthened.

Step 1.3: Identify potential knowledge contributions

Based on preliminary review, identify the specific accounting gaps where traditional knowledge could contribute:

• Ecosystem extent: Habitat boundaries, historical extent baselines
• Ecosystem condition: Species abundance trends, water quality observations, phenological shifts
• Ecosystem services: Cultural services, provisioning services (traditional harvest), regulating services informed by local observation
• Spatial units: Customary marine tenure areas as potential ecosystem asset boundaries

This scoping exercise should be preliminary only; final determination of what knowledge will be shared must emerge through community engagement.

3.4.2 Phase 2: Relationship building and FPIC (Months 4-9)

Step 2.1: Establish initial contact

Contact community leadership through appropriate channels (government liaisons, existing relationships, or community-designated contact points). Request permission to discuss the ocean accounts program and potential collaboration.

Step 2.2: Community briefing

Present information about the ocean accounts program in accessible language and format, explaining:

• What ocean accounts are and how they will be used
• What types of information the agency hopes communities might share
• How traditional knowledge would be documented and stored
• What benefits might accrue to the community from participation
• What risks or sensitivities might arise

Provide materials in local languages where possible. Allow adequate time for community deliberation according to their own decision-making processes.

Step 2.3: Negotiate terms of engagement

If the community expresses interest in participating, negotiate terms covering:

• What knowledge may be shared and what restrictions apply
• How knowledge holders will be compensated for their time
• How the community will be acknowledged in publications
• What review processes will be established for community approval of outputs
• How data sovereignty will be implemented
• What benefit-sharing arrangements will apply
• Under what circumstances the community may withdraw consent

Step 2.4: Formalize agreement

Document terms in a memorandum of understanding or research agreement signed by community representatives and agency officials. The agreement should specify:

• Scope of knowledge to be documented
• Data ownership and access conditions
• Attribution and acknowledgment requirements
• Compensation arrangements
• Review and approval procedures
• Dispute resolution mechanisms
• Duration of agreement and conditions for renewal or termination

3.4.3 Phase 3: Knowledge documentation (Months 10-15)

Step 3.1: Select documentation methods

In consultation with the community, select appropriate documentation methods from those described in Section 3.2.3. Methods should align with community preferences and the nature of the knowledge being documented.

Step 3.2: Conduct knowledge documentation

Implement the agreed documentation methods, adhering to:

• Community protocols for knowledge sharing
• Compensation arrangements for knowledge holders' time
• Cultural protocols regarding who may speak on what topics
• Restrictions on recording or documentation in certain contexts

Documentation should capture not only the knowledge content but also provenance metadata including:

• Identity of knowledge holders (with consent for attribution)
• Date and location of documentation
• Context in which knowledge was shared
• Any restrictions or conditions on use
• Relationships between knowledge holders and the marine areas being discussed

Step 3.3: Community review

Provide documented knowledge back to the community for review. Correct any errors, remove any information the community determines should not have been included, and clarify any ambiguities. This review process is distinct from the final output review; it ensures the documentation accurately reflects what knowledge holders intended to communicate.

3.4.4 Phase 4: Quality assurance for mixed-method data (Months 16-18)

Step 4.1: Assess fit-for-purpose for accounting

Evaluate documented traditional knowledge against accounting requirements, considering:

• Spatial coverage: Does the knowledge pertain to specific ecosystem assets or spatial units in the accounting area?
• Temporal relevance: Does the knowledge provide baselines, trends, or current observations aligned with accounting periods?
• Measurement units: Can the knowledge be expressed in or translated to units compatible with accounting tables (hectares, species counts, qualitative condition classes, etc.)?
• Uncertainty: What is the confidence level in the knowledge? How might uncertainty be characterized and communicated?

Step 4.2: Identify cross-validation opportunities

Where traditional knowledge and scientific data address similar questions, plan for cross-validation:

• Convergent findings strengthen confidence in both knowledge systems
• Divergent findings signal areas requiring further investigation
• Document both convergence and divergence transparently

Step 4.3: Develop integration approach

Based on the assessment, select the appropriate integration approach from Section 3.2.1:

• Parallel documentation: Traditional knowledge recorded in supplementary tables alongside scientific data
• Cross-validation: Traditional knowledge used to validate scientific classifications or model outputs
• Gap-filling: Traditional knowledge fills spatial or temporal gaps in scientific monitoring
• Contextualization: Traditional knowledge provides interpretive context for scientific data

Most compilations will use a combination of these approaches for different knowledge types.

Step 4.4: Quality documentation

Document quality dimensions following TG-0.7 Quality Assurance:

• Accuracy: Characterize uncertainty in traditional knowledge observations
• Coherence: Assess consistency with other data sources where overlap exists
• Relevance: Confirm alignment with policy and decision-maker needs
• Timeliness: Note the time period to which knowledge pertains
• Accessibility: Describe access conditions including data sovereignty restrictions
• Metadata: Provide complete provenance documentation

3.4.5 Phase 5: Integration into accounts and community review (Months 19-21)

Step 5.1: Integrate into accounting tables

Incorporate traditional knowledge into the relevant account types:

• Extent accounts: Use traditional knowledge for historical baseline estimates, habitat boundary validation, or identification of previously unmapped ecosystem types
• Condition accounts: Incorporate traditional indicators alongside scientific metrics, noting the knowledge source for each indicator
• Services accounts: Document cultural services, validate provisioning service estimates, or contextualize regulating service assessments
• Monetary accounts: Where appropriate, traditional knowledge may inform valuation of cultural services or historical resource rent calculations

Step 5.2: Draft supplementary documentation

Prepare supplementary text explaining:

• How traditional knowledge was obtained (summarizing the FPIC process without disclosing sensitive details)
• What knowledge was incorporated and from which communities
• What restrictions or conditions apply to use of the knowledge
• How quality assurance was conducted for traditional knowledge contributions
• What limitations or uncertainties users should be aware of

Step 5.3: Community review of outputs

Provide draft accounts and supplementary documentation to the community for review. The community should assess:

• Whether their knowledge is accurately represented
• Whether any sensitive information has inadvertently been included
• Whether attribution and acknowledgment are appropriate
• Whether the integration respects the integrity of their knowledge

Revise accounts based on community feedback. If the community determines that publication would violate protocols, respect that determination even if it means removing substantial content from accounts.

Step 5.4: Final approval

Obtain written community approval before publication. Archive the approval documentation as part of the accounts metadata.

3.4.6 Ongoing engagement and benefit sharing

Traditional knowledge integration is not complete upon publication of accounts. Ongoing responsibilities include:

• Provide communities with copies of published accounts in accessible formats
• Share information about how accounts are being used in policy or decision-making
• Fulfill any benefit-sharing commitments (capacity building, data access, etc.)
• Maintain communication to support continued consent for use of knowledge
• Consult the community before any new uses of their knowledge
• Support community-led monitoring or data management initiatives where feasible

3.5 Cultural Services and Traditional Knowledge

Traditional knowledge relates closely to the cultural ecosystem services recognized in the SEEA Ecosystem Accounting framework. Cultural services include "recreation-related services, visual amenity services, education, science and research services, spiritual, artistic and symbolic services at the most detailed level"^[40]. For many Indigenous Peoples and coastal communities, marine ecosystems provide cultural services that are central to identity, spiritual practice, and intergenerational knowledge transmission.

3.5.1 Cultural services in ocean contexts

Marine cultural services that may be informed by traditional knowledge include:

Spiritual and ceremonial connections: Marine areas may be sites of spiritual significance, associated with ancestral beings, creation stories, or ongoing ceremonial practice. Traditional knowledge holders can identify these sites and articulate their significance, though this knowledge may be sensitive and subject to restrictions on sharing. The SEEA EA recognizes that "there may be traditional harvests undertaken by indigenous groups" and that "if the harvest is retained for subsequent consumption, then the quantity of the associated biomass should be included as part of biomass provisioning services. At the same time, there would be a connection to the measurement of cultural services. In these instances, flows of cultural services should be recorded in addition to biomass provisioning services"^[41].

Customary resource use: The gathering of marine resources for customary purposes contributes to cultural continuity and intergenerational knowledge transmission. Understanding these practices requires engagement with traditional knowledge holders who can explain the cultural dimensions that distinguish customary use from commercial extraction. This connects to the discussion of ocean sector employment in TG-3.5 Social Accounts, Section 3.1.2.

Place-based knowledge and identity: For coastal communities, marine environments are often central to collective identity. Traditional place names, navigation knowledge, and environmental knowledge contribute to sense of place and cultural identity that cannot be captured in conventional ecosystem service metrics.

Educational and intergenerational transmission: Marine environments serve as sites for education and knowledge transmission, where younger generations learn from elders through observation and practice. This educational service depends on the continued health of marine ecosystems and continuity of cultural practices.

Table 3.6.2: Marine cultural services and traditional knowledge contributions

For guidance on the broader framework for cultural ecosystem services, see TG-2.4 Ecosystem Goods and Services.

3.5.2 Connections to governance accounts

Traditional knowledge systems often include customary governance institutions that regulate access to marine resources and mediate conflicts. These customary systems may operate alongside or in tension with formal legal frameworks. Governance accounts should document customary governance arrangements where they influence marine management outcomes.

The TNFD defines Local Communities partly in terms of their governance characteristics, noting that they may have "a set of social rules (e.g. that regulate land conflicts/sharing of benefits) and organisational-specific community/traditional/customary laws and institutions"^[42]. For ocean accounting, documentation of these customary institutions can inform understanding of actual governance arrangements in marine areas.

TG-3.7 Governance Accounts provides guidance on documenting customary governance alongside formal legal frameworks, including in Section 3.2.2 on customary law and Section 3.1.2 on multi-level governance structures that incorporate co-management arrangements.

4. Worked Example

This section presents a hypothetical worked example illustrating how traditional knowledge might be incorporated into ocean accounts for a Pacific Island context. The example is entirely fictional and is designed to demonstrate the accounting structures and engagement processes described in this Circular. It is not based on any specific community or knowledge system, and should not be taken as representative of any particular Indigenous People or Local Community. In practice, every engagement with traditional knowledge holders must be tailored to the specific cultural context and conducted in accordance with the principles set out in Section 3.1.

4.1 Scenario: Mangrove cultural value assessment in a hypothetical Pacific Island community

Setting. A national statistical office (NSO) in a Pacific Island State is compiling ecosystem accounts for a coastal lagoon system that includes 850 hectares of mangrove forest. Scientific monitoring data (satellite imagery, field surveys) provide information on mangrove extent and biophysical condition. However, the NSO recognizes that the mangroves also provide cultural services to the adjacent community of approximately 2,500 people who have customary tenure over the lagoon, and that these cultural dimensions are not captured by existing scientific data.

Objective. To incorporate traditional knowledge contributions into the cultural services component of the ecosystem accounts for the lagoon system, following the principles and processes described in this Circular.

4.2 FPIC process steps applied to the assessment

The NSO follows the FPIC process described in Section 3.1.3. The steps below illustrate how FPIC principles translate into practice for this hypothetical case:

4.3 Cultural services account template

Based on the engagement process, the NSO compiles a supplementary cultural services account for the mangrove lagoon system. The account uses a parallel documentation approach (Section 3.2.1), recording scientific and traditional knowledge contributions side by side:

Table 4.1: Cultural services account -- mangrove lagoon system (hypothetical)

4.4 Traditional knowledge inputs to condition accounts

In addition to the cultural services account, traditional knowledge may contribute to ecosystem condition assessment. The following illustrative entries show how TK observations might appear alongside scientific indicators in a condition account:

Table 4.2: Condition variable inputs from traditional knowledge (illustrative)

4.5 Benefit-sharing and capacity building outcomes

As part of the agreed benefit-sharing arrangements, the NSO provides:

1. Financial compensation: Knowledge holders who participated in documentation workshops receive hourly compensation at local professional rates (40 person-hours total)
2. Capacity building: The NSO conducts a 2-day training workshop for 15 community members on basic ecosystem accounting concepts and how community knowledge contributes to national accounts
3. Data access: The community receives a complete copy of the lagoon ecosystem accounts in print and digital formats, along with spatial data layers showing mangrove extent and condition
4. Ongoing engagement: The NSO establishes an annual reporting schedule where accounts updates are shared with the community, and the community provides feedback on whether their knowledge continues to be appropriately represented

4.6 Key observations from the worked example

This hypothetical example illustrates several important points about traditional knowledge integration:

1. FPIC is a process, not an event. The engagement timeline spans at least six months before substantive knowledge exchange begins, and consent is maintained on an ongoing basis.

2. Not all knowledge appears in published accounts. The sacred site locations are recorded under community data sovereignty protocols and do not appear in public accounts. This is consistent with the principle in Section 3.3.3 that some aspects of human-ocean relationships cannot be documented in published accounts.

3. TK contributions appear as supplementary notes and tables, not as modifications to core SEEA accounts. The core extent and condition accounts retain their scientific basis, while TK contributions are recorded in supplementary tables that provide additional context, extended baselines, and culturally significant information.

4. Cross-validation strengthens both knowledge systems. Where TK observations and scientific data converge (e.g., on species disappearances), confidence in both is increased. Where they diverge, this signals areas for further investigation.

5. The cultural services account captures dimensions that scientific monitoring cannot. Spiritual significance, traditional place names, and customary use practices are inherently qualitative and community-specific; they can only be documented through respectful engagement with knowledge holders.

6. Benefit-sharing is concrete and ongoing. The example includes specific financial, capacity-building, and data-access benefits that continue beyond the initial engagement period.

Compilers should note that this example represents a best-case scenario in terms of community willingness to engage and clarity of governance structures. In practice, engagement may encounter challenges not illustrated here, including community disagreement about knowledge sharing, capacity constraints within the NSO, language barriers, and political sensitivities. The principles in Section 3.1 provide guidance for navigating these challenges.

5. Compilation Considerations

5.1 Capacity and resources

Working with traditional knowledge requires substantial investment in relationship building, culturally appropriate methods, and sustained engagement. Agencies considering incorporation of traditional knowledge into ocean accounts should ensure adequate:

• Time for relationship building before data collection begins (minimum 6-12 months)
• Personnel with cultural competence and community engagement skills
• Resources for fair compensation of knowledge holders
• Capacity for ongoing community engagement, not one-time data extraction
• Commitment from leadership to ethical engagement principles
• Budget for translation and interpretation services where needed
• Legal review capacity for research agreements and data sovereignty arrangements

Resource planning for traditional knowledge engagement should recognize that timelines and costs differ substantially from conventional data collection. Agencies should anticipate that the relationship-building phase alone may require six to twelve months before substantive knowledge exchange can begin. Budget allocations should include provision for community liaison officers, travel to community locations, translation and interpretation services, compensation for knowledge holders' time, and community review of outputs. Many agencies have underestimated these requirements, leading to inadequate engagement that fails to meet ethical standards or to produce reliable contributions to accounts. Where resources are insufficient for ethical engagement, it may be more appropriate to defer traditional knowledge integration until adequate support can be secured, rather than proceeding with superficial consultation that risks eroding community trust.

5.2 Limitations and uncertainties

The incorporation of traditional knowledge into ocean accounts involves significant uncertainties:

• Traditional knowledge may address different questions and use different concepts than those in accounting frameworks
• Knowledge varies among individuals and communities, and aggregation may obscure important local variation
• Not all traditional knowledge can or should be documented
• Integration with scientific data involves translation between incommensurable knowledge systems
• Methods for validation and quality assurance are not well established

Accounts incorporating traditional knowledge should clearly document these limitations and avoid overstating the precision or completeness of traditional knowledge contributions.

The quality assurance framework in TG-0.7 Quality Assurance provides general guidance on uncertainty characterization. For traditional knowledge, uncertainty characterization should address the cultural and contextual dimensions noted above, not only measurement uncertainty in the statistical sense.

5.3 Reporting and attribution

When traditional knowledge contributes to ocean accounts, the contribution should be clearly acknowledged:

• Credit knowledge-holding communities in account documentation
• Distinguish traditional knowledge contributions from scientific data sources
• Note any restrictions on use or sharing that apply to traditional knowledge components
• Provide copies of relevant accounts to contributing communities
• Recognize individual knowledge holders where they have consented to attribution

These practices align with the metadata and provenance documentation requirements discussed in TG-4.4 Citizen Science and Community-Based Monitoring, Section 3.3.

5.4 Connections with related circulars

This Circular connects to several other components of the Technical Guidance:

• TG-3.5 Social Accounts: Provides the broader framework for documenting human dimensions of ocean-society relationships, including wellbeing indicators and qualitative approaches
• TG-3.7 Governance Accounts: Addresses documentation of customary governance systems alongside formal legal frameworks
• TG-4.4 Citizen Science and Community-Based Monitoring: Provides complementary guidance on community-based data collection and integration with official statistics
• TG-2.4 Ecosystem Goods and Services: Addresses cultural ecosystem services that may be informed by traditional knowledge
• TG-0.7 Quality Assurance: Provides general quality framework applicable to all data sources
• TG-6.1 Coral Reef Accounts, TG-6.2 Mangrove Accounts, TG-6.3 Seagrass Accounts: Thematic accounts where traditional knowledge of ecosystem condition can complement scientific monitoring

6. References and Further Reading

• United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007)
• Convention on Biological Diversity, Article 8(j) and Nagoya Protocol
• Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (2022), Targets 3, 5, 21
• Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement, 2023)
• TNFD Recommendations and Guidance on Engagement with Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities and Affected Stakeholders (2023)
• SEEA Ecosystem Accounting, Chapter 6 (Ecosystem Services)
• ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples
• Global Indigenous Data Alliance, CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance (2019)
• United Nations Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics (2014)
• SEEA Guidelines on Biophysical Modelling for Ecosystem Accounting, Section 5.7 (Reference Conditions)

Authors: Social Accounts Working Group, Mitchell Lyons, Bella Charlsworth Reviewers: Pending Last Updated: February 2026