Governance Accounts

1. Outcome

This Circular provides guidance on compiling governance accounts for ocean accounting, documenting institutional arrangements, legal frameworks, and policy instruments that shape ocean management. Upon completing this Circular, readers will understand how to systematically record and classify the governance structures that apply to marine areas, including the multi-level framework established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), regional fisheries management arrangements, and national marine spatial planning instruments. The accounts enable analysis of governance effectiveness and support linkages between ocean accounting and policy evaluation frameworks, including SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) and SDG 14 (Life Below Water). The guidance integrates with the broader Ocean Accounts framework described in TG-0.1 General Introduction and the statistical standards outlined in TG-0.2 Standards Overview. The governance structures documented using this guidance provide the institutional context needed for marine spatial planning (TG-1.2 Marine Spatial Planning) and the jurisdictional framework for accounting in deep-sea areas beyond national jurisdiction (TG-6.6 Deep Sea and ABNJ).

Governance accounts occupy a central position within the ocean accounting stack. Upward, they inform the policy decisions recorded in marine spatial plans (TG-1.2) and provide the management intensity data needed for MPA effectiveness assessment (TG-1.3 Marine Spatial Management (including MPAs)). Laterally, they supply the institutional context for social accounts (TG-3.5 Social Accounts)--documenting the governance rules that shape distributional outcomes--and for ocean economy accounts (TG-3.3 Economic Activity), where regulatory regimes influence the structure and composition of economic activity in marine sectors. Downward, governance accounts draw extensively on administrative data sources (TG-4.3 Administrative Data), including official gazettes, licensing databases, budget documents, and enforcement records that form the empirical basis for governance compilation.

Important Note: Governance accounting for ocean systems is an emerging field. While this Circular provides a conceptual framework and initial methodological guidance, standardized classifications and compilation approaches are still under development. Practitioners should treat this guidance as provisional and anticipate refinements as experience accumulates across implementing countries. The Emerging badge assigned to this Circular reflects this provisional status; all guidance should be interpreted with appropriate caution and adapted to national circumstances.

2. Requirements

This Circular requires familiarity with:

• TG-0.1 General Introduction to Ocean Accounts -- for the conceptual framework and key components of Ocean Accounts, including the relationship between environmental and economic accounting frameworks
• TG-0.2 Standards Overview -- for the international statistical standards underpinning ocean accounting, including SNA 2025, SEEA, and classification systems

3. Guidance Material

3.1 Institutional Arrangements

Governance accounts document the institutional arrangements that govern ocean areas and resources. These arrangements operate across multiple scales--international, regional, national, and local--and involve diverse actors including governments, intergovernmental organizations, regional bodies, and customary governance systems. The institutional mapping compiled through governance accounts provides essential context for the spatial planning processes described in TG-1.2 Marine Spatial Planning, which depend on clear documentation of jurisdictional authority and institutional responsibilities within the accounting area.

3.1.1 The UNCLOS framework

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), adopted in 1982, establishes the fundamental legal framework for ocean governance. UNCLOS creates a hierarchical system of maritime zones, each with distinct governance implications that can be recorded in accounting frameworks^[1].

Table 3.7.1: UNCLOS maritime zones and accounting treatment

Territorial Sea: Extends up to 12 nautical miles from baselines, where the coastal State exercises "sovereignty...over the territorial sea...subject to this Convention and to other rules of international law" (UNCLOS Article 2)^[2]. Within this zone, the coastal State has comprehensive regulatory authority, including over navigation (subject to innocent passage), fisheries, and environmental protection.

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): Extends up to 200 nautical miles from baselines, where the coastal State has "sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living" (UNCLOS Article 56)^[3]. The EEZ regime balances coastal State resource rights with freedoms of navigation, overflight, and submarine cable laying enjoyed by all States. SDG indicator 14.2.1 specifically addresses the "Proportion of national exclusive economic zones managed using ecosystem-based approaches"^[4].

Continental Shelf: The seabed and subsoil extending beyond the territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of the land territory, where the coastal State exercises sovereign rights for exploring and exploiting natural resources (UNCLOS Articles 76-77)^[5]. For extended continental shelves beyond 200 nautical miles, claims must be submitted to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

High Seas: Areas beyond national jurisdiction where "no State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty" (UNCLOS Article 89)^[6]. The high seas are governed by the principle of freedom of the seas, including freedom of navigation, fishing (subject to conservation obligations), and scientific research. Governance accounts for high seas areas require coordination with the frameworks described in TG-6.6 Deep Sea and ABNJ, which addresses accounting for areas beyond national jurisdiction in detail, including the role of sectoral management bodies and the emerging BBNJ Agreement provisions for area-based management tools.

The Area: The seabed and ocean floor beyond national jurisdiction, together with its resources, which are "the common heritage of mankind" (UNCLOS Article 136)^[7]. Activities in the Area are governed by the International Seabed Authority (ISA), established under UNCLOS Part XI. The ISA has developed regulations for prospecting and exploration of polymetallic nodules, polymetallic sulphides, and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts. The governance framework for the Area is further discussed in TG-6.6 Deep Sea and ABNJ.

Governance accounts should document the spatial extent of each maritime zone within the accounting area, the governmental institutions responsible for management within each zone, and the legal instruments that operationalize UNCLOS provisions domestically. This spatial documentation relates to the delineation of ecosystem accounting areas discussed in TG-0.1 and the extent accounting approaches in SEEA EA Chapter 4.

3.1.2 Multi-level governance structures

Ocean governance typically involves multiple institutions operating at different scales. Governance accounts should document:

International organizations: Bodies with mandates relevant to ocean management, including the International Maritime Organization (IMO) for shipping, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) for fisheries, the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) for marine science, and the International Seabed Authority (ISA) for deep-sea mining.

Regional organizations: Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) that manage shared fish stocks across national boundaries, Regional Seas Programmes under UNEP, and regional economic commissions with ocean-related mandates. UNCLOS specifically encourages cooperation through regional organizations: "States shall seek, either directly or through appropriate subregional or regional organizations, to agree upon the measures necessary to coordinate and ensure the conservation and development of such stocks" (UNCLOS Article 63)^[8]. States bordering enclosed or semi-enclosed seas have specific cooperation obligations under UNCLOS Article 123.

Figure 3.7.1: Multi-level governance structure for a typical coastal State

National institutions: Government ministries, agencies, and statutory bodies responsible for ocean management, including fisheries departments, maritime authorities, environmental protection agencies, and coastal zone management bodies. The Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG) provides a framework for classifying government expenditure by function, with categories relevant to ocean governance including 04.2 (Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting), 05.4 (Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape), and 05.6 (Environmental Protection n.e.c.)^[9].

Subnational and local institutions: Provincial, state, and local governments with ocean management responsibilities, as well as customary governance institutions that may have traditional authority over marine areas and resources. The relevance of traditional knowledge and governance is further addressed in TG-3.6 Traditional Knowledge Accounts.

Co-management arrangements: Partnerships between government agencies and resource users, including fishing communities, tourism operators, and Indigenous peoples, that share management responsibilities. Co-management arrangements are particularly important for fisheries governance; see TG-1.5 Fisheries Management for related guidance.

3.1.3 Accounting for institutional arrangements

Governance accounts should compile inventories of institutions with ocean management responsibilities. Table 3.7.2 presents a suggested template for organizing such inventories. The template is indicative rather than prescriptive--compilers should adapt the structure to national circumstances and data availability.

Table 3.7.2: Suggested template for institutional inventory

This institutional mapping provides the foundation for analyzing governance coverage, identifying gaps, and assessing coordination mechanisms.

3.2 Legal Frameworks

Legal frameworks establish the rules that govern activities in marine areas. Governance accounts should document the hierarchy of legal instruments, from international treaties to local regulations.

3.2.1 International legal instruments

Beyond UNCLOS itself, numerous international agreements create legal obligations relevant to ocean governance:

Fisheries law: The UN Fish Stocks Agreement (1995) elaborates UNCLOS provisions on straddling and highly migratory stocks, requiring conservation and management measures based on the precautionary approach and best scientific evidence^[10]. The FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995) provides voluntary standards for sustainable fishing practices. For comprehensive treatment of fisheries governance, see TG-1.5 Fisheries Management.

Environmental protection: The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) applies to marine areas within national jurisdiction, with recent decisions under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework calling for protection of 30% of marine areas by 2030^[11]. The London Convention and Protocol regulate marine dumping. Regional agreements such as OSPAR (North-East Atlantic) and the Barcelona Convention (Mediterranean) establish regional obligations for marine environmental protection.

Maritime security and safety: IMO conventions address vessel safety (SOLAS), marine pollution from ships (MARPOL), and related matters. Port State control regimes enable enforcement of international shipping standards.

New instruments: The Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement, 2023) establishes new governance mechanisms for high seas areas, including provisions for marine protected areas, environmental impact assessment, and marine genetic resources^[12]. As of early 2026, the BBNJ Agreement has been signed by over 100 States and is approaching the 60 ratifications required for entry into force. Compilers should document their country's ratification status and monitor COP decisions as they emerge, since the Agreement will significantly expand the governance framework for areas beyond national jurisdiction once operational. Governance accounts should be prepared to record:

• National ratification status and implementing legislation
• COP decisions that create new governance obligations (e.g., area-based management tool designations, EIA thresholds)
• ABNJ marine protected area designations as they are established under Part III
• Benefit-sharing arrangements for marine genetic resources under Part II, including digital sequence information provisions

Updated ratification information is available through the United Nations Treaty Collection. For the application of BBNJ governance provisions to deep-sea accounting, see TG-6.6 Deep Sea and ABNJ.

3.2.2 National legislation

Domestic legal frameworks translate international obligations into enforceable national law. Governance accounts should document:

Primary legislation: Acts of parliament or equivalent instruments that establish the legal framework for ocean management, including fisheries acts, maritime zones acts, environmental protection acts, and marine spatial planning legislation.

Secondary legislation: Regulations, rules, and orders made under primary legislation that provide detailed implementation requirements, such as fishing license conditions, pollution discharge standards, and protected area management rules.

Customary law: In some jurisdictions, customary marine tenure systems and traditional governance practices have legal recognition and should be included in governance accounts. See TG-3.6 Traditional Knowledge Accounts for guidance on documenting customary governance systems.

3.2.3 Accounting for legal frameworks

Legal framework accounts should compile inventories of applicable legal instruments, classified by:

• Instrument type (treaty, act, regulation, customary law)
• Jurisdictional level (international, regional, national, subnational)
• Thematic scope (fisheries, environment, shipping, etc.)
• Geographic application (specific maritime zones or management areas)
• Entry into force and amendment history
• Implementation status and enforcement mechanisms

SDG indicator 14.c.1 specifically measures "Number of countries making progress in ratifying, accepting and implementing through legal, policy and institutional frameworks, ocean-related instruments that implement international law, as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea"^[13]. Governance accounts can provide the systematic documentation needed for such reporting.

3.3 Policy Instruments

Beyond legal frameworks, ocean governance employs diverse policy instruments to achieve management objectives. These instruments can be classified using frameworks from environmental economics and policy analysis.

3.3.1 Regulatory instruments

Spatial management: Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and other area-based conservation measures restrict or regulate activities within defined geographic boundaries. The IUCN defines protected areas as "clearly defined geographical spaces, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature"^[14]. Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs) achieve conservation outcomes through management regimes not primarily intended for conservation, such as fisheries closures or military exclusion zones. For comprehensive guidance on MPA accounting, see TG-1.3 Marine Spatial Management (including MPAs).

MPA governance account template. For each designated marine protected area, governance accounts should compile a structured record of management attributes that enables effectiveness assessment. Table 3.7.5 presents a suggested template. This template provides the governance data layer that TG-1.3 draws upon when assessing management effectiveness against IUCN Green List criteria, and that feeds reporting on GBF Target 3 (which requires areas to be "effectively conserved and managed," not merely designated).

Table 3.7.5: MPA governance account template

Access controls and access rights inventory. Licensing and permitting systems regulate who can conduct activities in marine areas. UNCLOS requires coastal States to establish laws and regulations relating to fishing in the EEZ, including "licensing of fishermen, fishing vessels and equipment" (UNCLOS Article 62)^[15]. Governance accounts should compile a systematic access rights inventory covering:

• Fishing licences and quota allocations: The number, type, and conditions of fishing licences issued; the total allowable catch and its allocation among domestic commercial, artisanal, and foreign fleets; and any individual transferable quota (ITQ) holdings. SDG indicator 14.b.1 measures "Progress by countries in the degree of application of a legal/regulatory/policy/institutional framework which recognizes and protects access rights for small-scale fisheries"^[16]--governance accounts should document the frameworks that this indicator assesses.
• Aquaculture permits: Permits for marine aquaculture operations, including species, location, and operational conditions.
• MPA access permits: Where MPAs restrict access, records of permits for research, tourism, or traditional use within managed zones.
• Coastal land tenure records: Foreshore leases, reclamation permits, and coastal land titles that determine access to the land-sea interface.

This access rights inventory provides the governance data that TG-3.5 Social Accounts Section 3.2.2 draws upon when assessing equity in access to ocean resources. The governance rules documented here shape the distributional outcomes recorded in social accounts.

Output controls: Catch limits, quotas, and harvest control rules regulate the quantity of resources that can be extracted. Total Allowable Catch (TAC) systems allocate catch rights among users, while Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) create tradeable property rights in fisheries.

Technical measures: Gear restrictions, minimum size limits, closed seasons, and other technical measures shape how activities are conducted to reduce environmental impacts.

Compliance, enforcement, and monitoring. Governance accounts should document the compliance and enforcement mechanisms associated with regulatory instruments. Table 3.7.6 presents a structured template for recording enforcement metrics. Where comprehensive data are not available, compilers should document whichever metrics are obtainable and note significant gaps.

Table 3.7.6: Enforcement and compliance metrics template

These enforcement data are typically drawn from administrative records held by fisheries management, maritime, and environmental protection agencies. While comprehensive compliance data may not be available in all jurisdictions, documenting the extent and nature of enforcement activity provides important context for assessing the effectiveness of regulatory instruments. The enforcement metrics compiled here feed directly into the MPA effectiveness assessments described in TG-1.3.

3.3.2 Economic instruments

Taxes and charges: Resource rent taxes, fishing levies, and user fees can internalize environmental costs and generate revenue for ocean management. The SEEA Central Framework addresses environmental taxes and subsidies within the accounting framework^[17].

Subsidies: Government payments that affect fishing capacity, aquaculture development, or other ocean activities. SDG Target 14.6 calls for prohibition of "fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing"^[18]. Governance accounts should document the type, magnitude, and recipients of ocean-related subsidies.

Payment for ecosystem services: Schemes that compensate resource users for providing ecosystem services, such as payments to fishing communities for protecting spawning areas or mangrove conservation incentives. These relate to ecosystem services accounting discussed in TG-2.4 Ecosystem Goods and Services.

Conservation finance: Blue bonds, debt-for-nature swaps, and other innovative financing mechanisms that mobilize private capital for ocean conservation. See TG-1.7 Multilateral Finance and TG-1.8 Project Finance for related guidance on financing instruments.

3.3.3 Informational instruments

Monitoring and reporting requirements: Obligations to collect and report data on activities, catches, and environmental conditions, including Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) for fishing vessels. These monitoring systems generate data that feeds into the data collection approaches discussed in Section 4 of the Technical Guidance.

Certification and labeling: Market-based schemes that differentiate products based on sustainability criteria, such as Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification for fisheries.

Environmental assessment: Requirements for environmental impact assessment before approving development activities, and strategic environmental assessment for plans and programs. See TG-1.6 Environmental Impact Assessment for related guidance.

3.3.4 Accounting for policy instruments

Policy instrument accounts should document:

• Instrument type (regulatory, economic, informational)
• Specific mechanism (MPA, license, quota, tax, etc.)
• Geographic scope of application
• Target activities or resources
• Implementing agency
• Compliance and enforcement mechanisms
• Linkages to legal frameworks

3.3.5 Compilable governance account tables

Governance accounts should, where data permit, compile quantitative tables that present governance expenditure and revenue in a format consistent with international statistical standards. The tables described in this subsection adapt established frameworks--COFOG for government expenditure by function, SNA 2025 for institutional sector classification, and the SEEA CF Environmental Protection Expenditure Account (EPEA) for environmental protection spending--to the ocean governance context. Compilers should treat these as target structures and populate whichever cells national data sources can support, documenting gaps transparently.

Table A: Government ocean governance expenditure by function (COFOG-based). COFOG classifies government expenditure by socio-economic function (COFOG paras. 15--31). Table 3.7.7 identifies the COFOG codes most relevant to ocean governance and provides the expenditure categories that governance accounts should aim to compile. For each COFOG code, compilers should identify the responsible government agencies and apportion their expenditures to the relevant function. Where a single agency serves multiple COFOG functions (e.g., a ministry covering both fisheries management and aquaculture regulation), expenditures should be apportioned to each function where feasible; if apportionment is not practicable, the expenditure should be assigned to the predominant function (COFOG para. 19). COFOG para. 22 specifically warns that environmental protection expenditures "may appear as relatively minor items in the expenditures of administrative bodies that have quite different functions"--compilers should make special efforts to identify and correctly classify all ocean-related environmental protection expenditure^[19].

Table 3.7.7: Government ocean governance expenditure by function (COFOG-based)

Table B: Ocean governance expenditure by institutional sector and maritime zone. Table 3.7.8 cross-classifies ocean governance expenditure by SNA 2025 institutional sector (SNA 2025 paras. 5.27--5.28) and UNCLOS maritime zone. This table reveals which sectors bear the cost of governance in which maritime areas. The general government sector (S13) is typically the dominant funder of governance, but non-financial corporations (S11) may incur significant compliance costs, while international organizations (S2) contribute through regional cooperation mechanisms.

Table 3.7.8: Ocean governance expenditure by institutional sector and maritime zone

Table C: Ocean environmental protection expenditure account (EPEA-adapted). Following the SEEA CF Table 4.4 structure (SEEA CF paras. 4.49--4.50, 4.85), Table 3.7.9 presents the national expenditure on ocean-specific environmental protection. This table distinguishes between the production of environmental protection services (by government and specialist producers) and their consumption (by users across sectors), providing a comprehensive view of the resources devoted to marine environmental governance.

Table 3.7.9: Ocean environmental protection expenditure account (EPEA-adapted)

Table D: Ocean governance environmental tax account. Table 3.7.10 compiles revenues from environmentally related taxes and fees that specifically apply to ocean activities, following the SEEA CF approach to environmental taxes (SEEA CF paras. 4.148--4.155). Environmental taxes are defined by their tax base rather than their declared purpose--a fuel tax applies to marine fuel regardless of the government's stated intent^[20].

Table 3.7.10: Ocean governance environmental tax account

These four tables provide a comprehensive accounting framework for governance expenditure and revenue. Section 3.6 demonstrates how to populate Table A using the worked example scenario.

3.3.6 Spatial classification of designated marine uses

Governance accounts produce a spatial classification of designated marine use zones -- the geographic areas within which specific activities are authorised, regulated, or prohibited by governance instruments. This spatial overlay of governance designations is one of the most operationally significant outputs of governance accounts, because it provides the governance data layer that marine spatial planning processes (TG-1.2) overlay with ecosystem extent to reveal the relationship between governance arrangements and ecological assets.

Table 3.7.11 presents a classification of designated marine use types. Each zone within the accounting area should be assigned to one or more use categories based on the governance instruments that apply to it. Where zones overlap (e.g., an MPA that overlaps with a designated fishery zone), compilers should record all applicable designations and note the hierarchy of precedence established by national law.

Table 3.7.11: Classification of designated marine use zones

To compile this spatial classification, governance accounts should:

1. Assemble spatial boundaries from the administrative records of each agency responsible for designating use zones (fisheries department for fishery zones, port authority for port areas, MPA authority for protected areas, etc.).
2. Reconcile overlapping designations, documenting the legal hierarchy that determines which designation takes precedence where zones overlap.
3. Calculate area statistics for each use category, by maritime zone (internal waters, territorial sea, EEZ, continental shelf), to produce the cross-tabulation described in TG-1.2 Table 2.
4. Track changes over time by recording the date of each designation, modification, or revocation, enabling time-series analysis of how the spatial footprint of governance evolves.

The designated use zone classification is an emerging area of practice, and the categories listed above should be adapted to national circumstances. Countries with established marine spatial plans may already maintain such classifications; countries without MSP may need to compile them from disparate sector-specific administrative records.

3.4 Governance Effectiveness

Governance accounts should move beyond simple inventories to support assessment of governance effectiveness. This dimension is particularly important but methodologically challenging--methods for measuring governance effectiveness in ocean contexts are still developing. As an emerging area, practitioners may initially focus on compiling the descriptive accounts of institutions, legal frameworks, and policy instruments described in Sections 3.1--3.3 before attempting quantitative effectiveness assessment. As methodological frameworks mature and data availability improves, more systematic effectiveness measurement should become feasible. The practical entry points described below represent what practitioners can realistically compile with currently available methods and data.

3.4.1 SDG 16 and institutional effectiveness

SDG 16 calls for "effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels" (SDG Target 16.6)^[21]. While general indicators address government effectiveness (e.g., SDG indicator 16.6.1 on budget execution), ocean-specific governance effectiveness measures are less developed.

Potential dimensions for assessing ocean governance effectiveness include:

Coverage: What proportion of the accounting area is covered by formal governance arrangements? Are there gaps in jurisdictional or functional coverage?

Coherence: Are governance arrangements consistent across scales and sectors? Are there conflicts or coordination failures between institutions? This relates to the discussion of cross-sectoral integration in TG-1.2 Marine Spatial Planning.

Compliance: What are rates of compliance with governance requirements? What enforcement capacity exists?

Adaptiveness: Do governance arrangements incorporate mechanisms for learning and adaptation, such as regular review cycles or adaptive management provisions?

Participation: Do governance arrangements provide for stakeholder participation in decision-making? SDG indicator 16.7.2 addresses "Proportion of population who believe decision-making is inclusive and responsive"^[22]. This dimension connects to social accounting approaches in TG-3.5 Social Accounts.

3.4.2 MPA effectiveness

For Marine Protected Areas, governance accounts can document management effectiveness using established assessment frameworks. The IUCN Green List Standard establishes criteria for effective and equitably managed protected areas, organized around good governance, sound design and planning, effective management, and conservation outcomes^[23].

SDG indicator 14.5.1 measures "Coverage of protected areas in relation to marine areas," while indicator 14.2.1 addresses "Proportion of national exclusive economic zones managed using ecosystem-based approaches"^[24]. Governance accounts provide the data infrastructure for computing such indicators. See TG-1.3 Marine Spatial Management (including MPAs) for detailed guidance on MPA effectiveness assessment.

3.4.3 Linking governance to outcomes

The ultimate test of governance effectiveness is whether arrangements achieve their intended outcomes--sustainable use, ecosystem health, equitable benefit sharing. Governance accounts should be compiled in conjunction with biophysical accounts (see TG-2.1 Biophysical Indicators) and economic accounts (see TG-3.3 Economic Activity) to enable analysis of relationships between governance arrangements and environmental and economic outcomes.

Governance accounts document the institutional rules that shape access to ocean resources; social accounts (TG-3.5 Social Accounts) record the distributional outcomes that result from those governance arrangements. Compilers should ensure that governance accounts and social accounts are compiled in a coordinated manner, so that the institutional rules documented here can be linked to the distributional patterns recorded in TG-3.5. In particular, the access rights inventory (Section 3.3.1) and benefit-sharing rules documented in economic instruments (Section 3.3.2) provide the governance context for the equity and distribution analysis in TG-3.5 Section 3.2, the access equity assessment in TG-3.5 Section 3.2.2, and the governance resilience dimension in TG-3.5 Section 3.3.3.

Analytical approaches include:

Comparative analysis: Comparing outcomes across areas with different governance regimes, controlling for other factors. For example, comparing fish stock status or ecosystem condition indicators between areas subject to different management regimes within the same accounting period can illuminate the influence of governance arrangements.

Time series analysis: Tracking changes in outcomes following implementation of governance reforms. Where governance structures change significantly between accounting periods, compilers should maintain a change log recording the date, nature, and scope of major reforms. This enables time-series accounts to be interpreted correctly by providing the institutional context for observed changes in biophysical or economic indicators.

Counterfactual assessment: Estimating what outcomes would have been absent specific governance interventions. This approach is methodologically demanding but may be feasible where comparable areas with and without specific governance arrangements exist.

These analytical approaches require caution in attributing causation, as governance is only one factor among many that influence ocean outcomes. The governance-outcome analytical methods described here are still maturing, and practitioners should document analytical choices, assumptions, and limitations transparently.

3.4.4 SDG and GBF indicator mapping

Governance accounts produce outputs that directly support national reporting on several international indicator frameworks. Table 3.7.12 provides a consolidated mapping between governance account components and the SDG 14, SDG 16, and Kunming-Montreal GBF indicators that they inform. This mapping is intended as a practical reference for compilers seeking to maximise the reporting utility of their governance compilation effort.

Table 3.7.12: Mapping governance account outputs to international indicators

3.5 Compilation considerations

3.5.1 Data sources

Governance accounts draw on diverse data sources:

• Official gazettes and legal databases for legislative instruments
• Government reports and organizational charts for institutional arrangements
• Budget documents for resource allocation
• Protected area databases (World Database on Protected Areas, national registries)
• RFMO and international organization records
• Administrative records on licenses, permits, and enforcement actions

For guidance on administrative data sources more generally, see TG-4.3 Administrative Data.

3.5.2 Classification challenges

Governance arrangements do not always fit neatly into standardized classifications. Challenges include:

• Overlapping jurisdictions and shared responsibilities
• Informal governance arrangements that lack formal legal status
• Rapid evolution of governance frameworks
• Variation in terminology across jurisdictions

Compilers should document classification decisions and note significant ambiguities.

3.5.3 Update frequency

Governance arrangements change less frequently than biophysical or economic variables, but significant reforms do occur. Accounts should be updated when major legislative changes occur, new institutions are established, or protected area networks are significantly modified. An annual review cycle may be appropriate, with more frequent updates during periods of active reform. Where governance structures change significantly between accounting periods, the change should be documented in the institutional inventory with effective dates, enabling users to correctly interpret time-series comparisons of governance-related indicators.

3.6 Worked Example

This section presents a hypothetical worked example illustrating how governance accounts might be compiled for a Pacific Small Island Developing State (SIDS). All institutions, figures, and arrangements are fictional and are designed to demonstrate the accounting structures described in this Circular. Actual compilations would draw on national legal databases, budget documents, and institutional records as described in Section 3.5.1.

3.6.1 Scenario: Institutional inventory for a hypothetical Pacific SIDS

Setting. A hypothetical Pacific Island State with an EEZ of approximately 1.2 million km2, a territorial sea of 15,000 km2, and a coastline of 800 km. The population of 280,000 is predominantly coastal, with approximately 85% living within 5 km of the coast. The economy depends significantly on fisheries (tuna licensing revenue constitutes 30% of government revenue) and coastal tourism.

The following institutional inventory documents the ten principal governance institutions with ocean management responsibilities.

Table 3.7.3: Institutional inventory -- hypothetical Pacific SIDS

3.6.2 Compiled COFOG expenditure table

Using the institutional inventory from Table 3.7.3, the budget data can be mapped to COFOG categories to produce a compiled version of Table A (Table 3.7.7). The following table demonstrates this mapping for the hypothetical Pacific SIDS. Where a single institution's budget spans multiple COFOG functions, expenditure has been apportioned based on functional composition as reported in the institution's annual report.

Table 3.7.13: Compiled government ocean governance expenditure -- hypothetical Pacific SIDS (USD thousands)

Note: The Total row includes the Island Council expenditure (4 x $0.15M = $0.6M) distributed across COFOG categories 04.2.3 (fisheries management) and 05.4.0 (biodiversity protection). The $12.9M total is consistent with the sum of institutional budgets in Table 3.7.3: $4.2M + $2.8M + $1.5M + $1.1M + $0.9M + $1.8M + $0.6M + $0.5M = $13.4M, less $0.5M in inter-institutional transfers to avoid double-counting.

This compilation illustrates how the institutional inventory translates into a COFOG-structured expenditure account. The dominance of fisheries management (COFOG 04.2.3, 35% of total) and marine biodiversity protection (COFOG 05.4.0, 16%) reflects the hypothetical country's economic dependence on fisheries and its commitment to marine conservation.

3.6.3 Mapping institutions to governance dimensions

Using the governance effectiveness dimensions described in Section 3.4.1, compilers can assess how the institutional arrangements map to key governance functions. The following analysis draws on the institutional inventory to identify strengths and gaps.

Table 3.7.4: Governance dimension assessment -- hypothetical Pacific SIDS

3.6.4 Governance coverage index calculation

A simple governance coverage index can be computed from the institutional inventory to assess the proportion of the accounting area covered by effective governance arrangements. This is an illustrative calculation; as noted in Section 3.4, standardized methods for governance effectiveness measurement are still developing.

Spatial coverage calculation:

Weighted governance coverage index:

Coverage index = Sum(area x coverage score) / Total area

= (2,000 x 0.9 + 15,000 x 0.7 + 1,183,000 x 0.4) / 1,200,000

= (1,800 + 10,500 + 473,200) / 1,200,000

= 485,500 / 1,200,000

= 0.40

The weighted governance coverage index of 0.40 reflects the dominant influence of the large EEZ, where governance presence is constrained by the practical challenges of monitoring and enforcing regulations across a vast ocean area with limited patrol and surveillance capacity. This is a common pattern among Pacific SIDS, where EEZ areas are orders of magnitude larger than land area and institutional resources.

3.6.5 Key observations from the worked example

This hypothetical example illustrates several important features of governance accounting:

1. Multi-level governance is the norm. Ten institutions operating at four levels (international, regional, national, community) share governance responsibilities. No single institution has comprehensive authority over all ocean management functions.

2. Customary governance fills critical gaps. The Traditional Chiefs Council (Institution 8) provides governance functions (compliance monitoring, adaptive management through seasonal closures) in nearshore areas that would otherwise require significant government expenditure to replicate. Governance accounts should document these customary institutions alongside formal agencies, consistent with the guidance in TG-3.6 Traditional Knowledge Accounts.

3. The governance coverage index is sensitive to spatial weighting. Because the EEZ dominates total marine area, the coverage index is heavily influenced by EEZ governance capacity. Alternative weighting approaches (e.g., by economic value, ecological significance, or population proximity) would yield different results and may be appropriate for different analytical purposes.

4. Coherence gaps are identifiable. The overlap between fisheries and environmental mandates in coral reef areas, and the absence of an integrated marine spatial plan, represent coherence gaps that governance accounts can document and track over time.

5. Budget and staffing data provide a resource dimension. Total government expenditure on ocean governance in this example is approximately $12.9 million per year with 280 staff (FTE), or approximately $10.75 per km2 of maritime area. This metric can be compared across countries and tracked over time to assess trends in governance investment. The compiled COFOG expenditure table (Table 3.7.13) reveals that fisheries management and marine biodiversity protection together account for approximately half of total ocean governance expenditure, reflecting the country's economic priorities and conservation commitments.

4. Acknowledgements

Authors: Social Accounts Working Group

Footnotes