Discussion on Technical Guidance - UN ESCAP · 6. Global data • Aug. 2018 recommended: review available data, identify gaps in core statistics, assess existing portals and evaluate

https://www.oceanaccounts.org/

Discussion on Technical GuidanceFirst Global Dialogue on Ocean Accounting

November 12-15, 2019

Michael BORDT.

Consultant, ESCAP




Discussion on Technical Guidance

Today’s process

• Review of issues from August 2018 workshop (Bangkok)• Issues & update on progress

• Have sheet with • Request for additional inputs (comment form and examples)

• Questions to answer (individually now → by group in afternoon)

• Topical presentations• Morning: SEEA revision, Inventory, Mapping

• Afternoon: Ocean Economy, Zanzibar example, Sri Lanka example

• Review of Questions → discuss → group response

• Note: Dec. 2019 version will be a limited update. Will discuss further development (2020) on Day 4 (objectives, working groups, schedule).

Global Ocean Accounts Partnership2



How we got here (1)

Feb. 2018: Concept note for Bangkok workshop

• Key issues for testing and resolution via pilots:

1. Spatial units & ecosystem type

2. Ecosystem services

3. Climate change and disaster

4. Social concerns

5. Economic concerns

6. Global data

7. Measuring SDG14

8. Governance

9. Modelling

10. Outstanding issues




Issues & Updates

General questions

• Question #1: Should the manual be closely linked to the SNA and SEEA?

• Aug. 2018 recommended: linking to existing standards

• SEEA Ecosystem Revision requesting input on marine

• Comments: link more closely to SEEA (CF or EEA, not both)

• Question #2: Should the manual provide more detailed statistical guidance?

• Aug. 2018 recommended: focusing on indicators and maps, rather than detailed statistical processes

• Pilot studies requested detailed tables and process guidance

• Challenging to solicit/integrate/develop specific detailed input

• Comments: more/less detail; more/less comprehensive; more use cases




Issues & Updates

1a. Spatial units• Aug. 2018 recommended: testing EMUs, global shoreline

vector, hexagon, grid

• Canada testing hexagon; Vanuatu using 1 nm grid

• ESCAP pilots: mapping using available spatial framework

• Malaysia suggests separate accounts for inshore/offshore

• Question #3: Should manual keep MBSU, CBSU, terminology?• Comments: Yes / No

• Question #7: Should the tables represent 3D ocean?• Tested Ecological Marine Units (EMUs) in Test Account

• Represented multiple layers as characteristics of one 2D area

• Existing units too large to correlate with Condition (aragonite) or Extent (Coral)

• Comments: Look to UNSD Global Geospatial Information Model

• SEEA Revision treating BSU as “operational” not “conceptual”




Testing Ecological marine units (EMUs)

Global Ocean Accounts Partnership

Statistical unit # =

EMU 18

EMU 21

EMU 8…

16,520 polygons

1,749 types

Results: Too large to

correlate with extent

(coral) or condition

(Aragonite)

Thanks to: Samy Djavidnia, Yilun Luo, Frank Yrle, Teerapong Praphotjanaporn, Lyutong Cai6



Issues & Updates

1b. Ecosystem type• Aug. 2018 recommendation: Test CMECS/CBiCS, include abiotic

• IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology (David Keith)• SEEA revision strongly recommending as reference classification

• Being tested by EU, Canada, others?

• Alternatives:

• SEEA-CF (15 land cover) → expanded to 48 ecosystem types by Bordt & Saner, 2019

• CMECS/CBiCS (coastal/marine only)

• Tested CMECS for mapping (Feixue Li)

• Crosswalked IUCN to SEEA-CF (Michael Bordt)

• Question #6: Do we agree to test the IUCN approach?• Comments: CBiCS used by UK Defra in marine valuation study

• Also discuss: relative roles of IUCN-GET & CMECS/CBiCS




Issues & Updates

2. Ecosystem services• Aug. 2018 recommended: include abiotic services, link to

SEEA “individual assets” • CICES V5.1 flags marine-related services, includes abiotic• Also NESCS and IPBES• Issues:

• CICES is a checklist of 96 ecosystem services; used in EU; no formal definitions or valuation methodology

• NESCS identifies environmental category, final service type and beneficiary; more coherent valuation of a narrow set of services

• IPBES is simple and general, based on “Nature’s Contributions to People”; 18 types: material, non-material, regulating

• Question #8: Is CICES best choice for an ecosystem services classification?

• Comments: Make a choice.• SEEA Revision developed agreed list → align to outcomes




Issues & Updates

3. Climate change and disaster risk• Aug. 2018 recommended:

determine core set of common statistics, promote ocean accounts in other communities

• ESCAP produced note →recommended core set of common statistics (Sanjay Srivastava et al.) (https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/Ocean%20accounts_30Oct2018_LowRes.pdf)

• ESCAP produced study of data availability for Ocean State Forecast (OSF) (Lyutong Cai)

• No questions, but an area of future development



https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/Ocean%20accounts_30Oct2018_LowRes.pdf


Issues & Updates

4. Social concerns• Aug. 2018 recommended: further research

and testing of beneficiaries, values, intervention points

• IIED webinars, briefs & courses on linking ocean accounts to small scale fishers

• “No hidden catch: mainstreaming small-scale fisheries in national accounts”

• https://www.iied.org/no-hidden-catch-mainstreaming-small-scale-fisheries-national-accounts

• No questions, but need contributionsof examples of socio-economic analysis in ocean assessment



https://www.iied.org/no-hidden-catch-mainstreaming-small-scale-fisheries-national-accounts


Issues & updates

• Morning Summary• Question #1: Should the manual be closely linked to the SNA

and SEEA?

• Question #2: Should the manual provide more detailed statistical guidance?

• Question #3: Should manual keep MBSU, CBSU, terminology?

• Question #6: Do we agree to test the IUCN approach?

• Question #7: Should the tables represent 3D ocean?

• Question #8: Is CICES best choice for an ecosystem services classification?




Issues & Updates

5. Economic concerns• Aug. 2018 recommended: develop standard definition &

classification of ocean economy, ensure national accounts fully includes direct benefits of ocean, link to sustainable tourism

• Pilots including tourism (Samoa, Thailand, Vietnam)• Many examples of “ocean/blue/marine economy” (Canada,

Philippines, NSW, others)• Links to High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy (Blue

Paper #8 on National Accounts for the ocean)• “Valuation” is a major topic for SEEA Ecosystems Revision• Question #4a: Include a clear sectoral definition of the “ocean

economy”? (alternatives are conceptual or on demand?• Question #4b: Should “assets” include produced capital (e.g., ports

and harbours) and human capital (e.g., knowledge, labour)?• Question #5: Should asset table (Table 1) include “unmanaged

regression” of ecosystems (i.e., loss due to unintended human impact and climate change)?




Issues & UpdatesQuestion #4a: Include a clear sectoral definition of the “ocean economy”? (alternatives are conceptual or on demand?

• Comments: Conceptual

• Challenging, not needed for SEEA


Conceptual definition

Sectoral definition

16



Issues & Updates

• Question #4b: Should “ocean assets” include produced and human capital?

• Produced capital: infrastructure including harbours, bridges, ports; oil platforms; artificial reefs; others?

• Implications: If included, framework is more comprehensive so links to climate change (ocean assets at risk) and social concerns (beneficiary groups, knowledge and science related ecosystem services)

• Comments: • develop as stand-alone table rather than trying to integrate (i.e.,

physical/monetary assets, physical/monetary flows, etc.)

• Yes




Issues & Updates

• Question 5: Should asset table (Table 1) include “unmanaged regression” of ecosystems (i.e., loss due to unintended human impact and climate change)?

• Currently have• Managed regression: planned, intended changes to area/stock

• Natural regression: natural reductions in area/stock from natural disasters, diseases, etc.

• “Unmanaged regression” would separately account for changes in area/stock due to unintended human impacts such as

• Pollution, sedimentation, warming reducing coral cover

• Aquaculture-based fish diseases reducing wild fish stock

• Implications: It’s already challenging assigning reasons for change to managed and natural. Should add to SEEA.

• Comments: none so far




Issues & Updates

6. Global data• Aug. 2018 recommended: review available data, identify gaps

in core statistics, assess existing portals and evaluate ESCAP role, engage other international agencies to share data

• Produced global data inventory (Lyutong Cai)

• Produced feasibility study for mapping ocean ecosystems (Feixue Li)

• Pacific Ocean Accounts Portal (Gemma Van Halderen) using global data

• Pilots included broad data assessment of data availability

• No questions, but need contributions of examples of use of Marine Spatial Data Infrastructure (MSDI) and suggestions for core statistics




Issues & Updates

7. Measuring SDG14• Aug. 2018 recommended: Link ocean accounts explicitly with

SDG14 (in theory and in pilots)

• ESCAP produced assessment of progress on SDG14.2.1: Proportion of national exclusive economic zones managed using ecosystem-based approaches (Piyapat Nakornchai and Natacha Pitaksereekul)

• ESCAP produced paper on SDG14 data challenges and opportunities: "SDG14: Life Below Water. Navigating Life Below Water in Asia and the Pacific” (Gemma Van Halderen)

• No pilots prioritized linking to SDG process.




Asia-Pacific Marine Spatial Planning Snapshot

SDG 14.2.1



SDG 14.2.1: Proportion of national exclusive economic zones managed using ecosystem-based approaches

• Interpretation: Area coverage within an EEZ that applies ecosystem-based ocean management approaches

• Various management approaches: MSP, ICZM, MFZ, MPA networks, LMMA, EAFM, etc.

• Methodology:• Literature review of “Marine Spatial Planning”

documents available online (Google and Google Scholar)

• If other terms emerging from literature review, those terms used for further online research

• Assessing against UN Environment (2018) (right) and availability of:

• Analysis of existing conditions

• Geospatial information integration

• User-Environment and User-user conflicts focus

• Governance mechanism

• Monitoring and evaluation features

MSP and ICZM Criteria (UN Environment, 2018):

• Integrated management of sea and land

• Ecosystem-based approach

• Use of a combination of instruments for implementation

• Adaptive management (based on best available evidence)

• Long term perspective

• Participatory engagement

• Cross-sectoral integration

• Planning/management for multiple uses

• Cross-border collaboration

• Use of existing management arrangements




• 0 : No

• 1 : Initiated

• 2 : In progress

• 3 : Full

• 0 : No information on MSP in English

• 1 : MSP initiated

• 2 : In progress in EEZ OR completed in some areas of EEZ

• 3 : Completed in EEZ

n=42 coastal ESCAP




Asia-Pacific MSP

2019

0 1 2 3

2

0

0

9

0

BRN, PRK, GEO, NRU,

PAK, LKA, TUR, TUV, HKG,

MAC

BDG, IDN, IRN, JPN, MDV, FSM, RUS, WSM, SGP,

THA, TLS, COK, NIU

FIJ, KIR, MYS, MMR, TON, VUT, NCL

1KHM, MHL IDN, NZL, PLW,

PNG, KOR, SLB, VNM, GUM,

MNP

ASM

2PHL, PYF AUS, CHN

3

Summary• 42 ESCAP members and

associated members, excluding:• 4 countries outside of ESCAP

region (France, Netherlands, UK and USA)

• 12 landlock countries (8 countries from North and Central Asia)

• 2009: • 65% of 0;

• 35% of 1-2; and

• 0% of 3

• 2019: • 22% of 0;

• 72% of 1-2; and

• 7% of 3

Draft. Countries welcome to provide additional detail.

Thanks to: Piyapat Nakornchai and Natacha Pitaksereekul, ESCAP




Issues & Updates

8. Governance• Aug. 2018 recommended: Conducted national governance

mapping and assessment, clarify ocean accounts implementation and scope of governance in manual

• Pilots conducted some governance assessment in scoping reports in terms of stakeholder mandates and responsibilities. Some found lack of data sharing, lack of clear mandates.

• Manual suggests some data structures for Governance Accounts

• Question #11: Is spatial detail necessary for the content of the Governance Accounts? e.g., jurisdiction, institutions, social conditions by spatial unit. (sub-national)




Issues & Updates

9. Modelling• Aug. 2018 recommendations: Determine “output

requirements” (e.g., key indicators) and use cases for modelling. Review existing models.

• Modelling not prioritized in pilots.

• SEEA revision continuing to assess ecosystem services models (not climate, oceanographic, etc…)

• ESCAP produced study of data availability for Ocean State Forecast (OSF) modelling (Lyutong Cai)

• No questions, but need examples of “use cases”.




Issues & Updates

10. Other issues

Two outstanding questions not linked directly to issues:• Question 9: Do we need to include the location of generation

and use of residual products? (para 199)

• Question 10: Should we try to incorporate the Rest of the World in the flows of residuals? (para 214)




Question 9

Manual suggests calculating generation of land-based and marine sources of wastes by geographic area. SEEA-CF waste accounts are national.

Example: Drainage Area 2 generates 100 Tonnes of “Mineral waste and soil” (probably agriculture and mining).

50 Tonnes of this may flow to Marine Area 1, where it is dredged for landfill.


Sectors generate waste

residuals, import or

recover

Some sectors use waste

residuals to generate

waste products, import

or recover

28



Question 9

Example continued: 20 Tonnes may remain in Drainage Area 2 and 30 Tonnes may flow to the ocean in Marine Area 1.

The amount dredged may be returned to Drainage Area 2 for use as construction landfill.

To keep geographic detail on generation and use of products would imply keeping track of transfers (like input-output).

Also relates to Question 10:implies lag time and dispersion (beyond one accounting period)


Sectors collect and

dispose of solid waste

residuals, export or flow

to the environment

(including ocean)

Some sectors use waste

products (recycled /

reused goods,

29



Question 10

Note: SEEA-CF “greys out” imports and exports of solid wastes and water effluents (not solid waste products).

However, SEEA-CF acknowledges flows of water from and to other territories.

Would provide a means of accounting for transboundary sources and disposition of marine pollution.

Reminder:

Question 9 about solid waste products…

Question 10 about transboundary flows of solid wastes




Issues & Updates

10. Other issues

Other issues for discussion?• Having read the technical guidance and completed the

comment form, is there anything we have not covered in the discussion?




Issues & Updates

• Afternoon summary• Question #4a: Include a clear sectoral definition of the “ocean

economy”? (alternatives are conceptual or on demand?• Question #4b: Should “assets” include produced capital (e.g.,

ports and harbours) and human capital (e.g., knowledge, labour)?

• Question #5: Should asset table (Table 1) include “unmanaged regression” of ecosystems (i.e., loss due to unintended human impact and climate change)?

• Question 9: Do we need to include the location of generation and use of residual products? (para 199)

• Question 10: Should we try to incorporate the Rest of the World in the flows of residuals? (para 214)

• Question #11: Is spatial detail necessary for the content of the Governance Accounts? e.g., jurisdiction, institutions, social conditions by spatial unit. (sub-national)




(Afternoon session) Review of questions


• 30 minutes to discuss and achieve majority vote.

• Summary report per group (non-neutral responses).

33



Thank you!



Discussion on Technical Guidance - UN ESCAP · 6. Global data • Aug. 2018 recommended: review available data, identify gaps in core statistics, assess existing portals and evaluate

Documents