Valuing The Ocean Economy: Lessons from earlier adopters

Sarah Taylor^1,2, Reza Daniels¹, Dominique van der Mensbrugghe³, Robert Davies⁴.

¹ University of Cape Town, South Africa
² Global Ocean Accounts Partnership (GOAP)
³ Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP), Purdue University
⁴ tralac

Key Messages

• Purpose and contribution. The paper compares three Ocean Economy Satellite Account (OESA) pilots (Norway, Portugal, U.S.), extracts methodological lessons, and sets out a stepwise protocol that countries can adapt to their own data environments.
• What OESAs do. OESAs reorganise existing national accounts to make the market-based ocean economy visible with SNA-consistent monetary indicators.
• Ocean economy scope and definition vary but share common logic. Countries include activities on the water, coastal-dependent, and for-ocean-use (produced anywhere but intended for the ocean), with design choices reflecting institutional context and data availability.
• Classification choices shape results. Portugal’s value-chain/thematic structure is broad; the U.S. uses functional groupings tightly aligned to supply–use tables (SUTs); Norway balances both with emphasis on offshore services and research and development - each implying different analytical strengths.
• Core indicators are consistent across pilots. All compile gross output, GVA, employment, and (selectively) investment and trade.
•  Two construction approaches. Countries either build a thematic account by disaggregating production/income accounts or embed ocean activities within the supply–use framework for fuller integration with the rest of the economy.
• Handling mixed industries. “Partials” (share estimates) are essential where industries combine ocean and non-ocean activity; transparency about data sources and allocation rules underpins comparability.
• Use of external sources. Where SUTs or industry codes are too coarse, administrative records, geospatial evidence, and sector surveys help identify ocean shares provided they are reconciled back to the central accounts.
•  SNA 2025 context. Core aggregates are unchanged; OESAs remain valid under the updated standard, which strengthens guidance on thematic/extended accounts and supports future extensions without altering current measures.
• Practical takeaway. Start with established sectors and the core indicator set; publish only what can be balanced in SUTs; use partials systematically; document scope choices; and expand coverage iteratively as data systems mature.

Introduction

 As countries increasingly seek to understand and manage the economic potential of their marine spaces, the development of Ocean Economy Satellite Accounts (OESAs) has emerged as a crucial tool for generating structured, national accounting-compatible insights into ocean-related activity. An ocean economy satellite account records the economic performance of ocean-related industry (GOAP, 2024). These satellite accounts allow for the structured valuation of marine economic contributions in a manner consistent with the System of National Accounts (SNA), enabling policymakers to assess, compare, and monitor the ocean economy alongside other sectors. 

The design and implementation of OESAs by countries such as Portugal, the United States (U.S.), and Norway offer instructive examples of how different statistical agencies have approached the challenge of identifying, classifying, and quantifying ocean-based industries (Statistics Portugal and Directorate-General for Maritime Policy, 2016; Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2022; Ånestad et al., 2022). Despite varying sectoral compositions and institutional contexts, these pilots share a common methodological foundation: they use satellite accounting principles to reorganise economic data from existing national accounts, isolate the marine components of broader industries, and produce coherent, policy-relevant estimates of the ocean economy's contribution in monetary terms.

Measuring the ocean economy in monetary terms is not only important for visibility in national statistics but also for informing macroeconomic management, investment planning, and sustainable development strategies (Colgan, 2016; Rayner et al., 2019; Kildow, 2019; Kildow, 2022). The OECD (2016) and others have highlighted the need for data coverage and improved measurement frameworks to capture the evolving structure and growth potential of ocean-based sectors. In response, countries like Portugal (Statistics Portugal and Directorate-General for Maritime Policy, 2016), the U.S. (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2022) and Norway (Ånestad et al., 2022) have compiled ocean economy satellite type accounts to estimate both the size and composition of their ocean economies and to track sectoral dynamics over time. These accounts provide critical insights into the structure of production and employment in marine-related industries, supporting a growing policy focus on the ocean economy. 

Within the wider landscape of ocean accounting, OESAs play a specific role: they focus on the market-based contribution of ocean industries using established national-accounts methods to reorganise and disaggregate existing data. Satellite accounting techniques are used to isolate marine-relevant activity in a way that is transparent and replicable. Although the broader ocean accounting agenda encompasses non-market environmental information, the pilots reviewed here focus on monetary measures consistent with the SNA, which is appropriate for estimating the ocean economy’s contribution to GDP and employment.

The paper’s contribution is threefold: it provides a cross-country comparison of OESA pilots (Portugal, the U.S., Norway), synthesises methodological lessons on scope and indicators, and summarises a stepwise protocol for compiling OESAs that remain aligned with national accounting standards. 

Valuing the Ocean Economy: The Role of Ocean Economy Satellite Accounts

 Understanding the economic value of the ocean is increasingly recognised as essential for informed policymaking, investment decisions, and sustainable management of marine resources (OECD, 2016; Sumaila et al., 2023). The ocean economy supports a broad spectrum of market-based and non-market activities, including fisheries, tourism, marine transport, and ecosystem services (Bennett et al., 2019; Bax et al., 2021). However, quantifying the diverse contributions of the ocean remains methodologically complex due to the interconnected nature of ocean systems and the fragmented way in which ocean-related activities are recorded in national statistics (Barbier, 2012; Lakshmi, 2021).

Several frameworks have been developed to address this challenge, each with different aims and valuation scopes. These include approaches such as Gross Marine Product (GMP), which applies Gross Domestic Product (GDP)-style accounting to the ocean economy (Fenichel et al., 2020); Ecosystem Services Valuation (ESV), which captures the full range of market and non-market benefits provided by marine ecosystems (Liu et al., 2010; Costanza, 2020); and Natural Capital Accounting (NCA), which integrates ecological assets and services into a system of physical and monetary accounts, often aligned with the SEEA-EA (UN, 2014; Faccioli et al., 2018). These approaches play an important role in ensuring that the full value of the ocean, including economic, social, and ecological, is recognised and internalised in policy and decision-making.

However, none of these frameworks alone provides a complete solution. The ocean accounting framework, as conceptualised by the Global Ocean Accounts Partnership (GOAP), brings these valuation approaches together, aiming to produce integrated accounts that align with both the System of National Accounts (SNA) and the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) (GOAP, 2024). Within this broader framework, the OESA serves a specific purpose: it focuses on the market-based economic contributions of ocean industries, using established national accounting methods to reorganise and disaggregate existing data (Colgan, 2016).

Satellite accounts are extensions of the System of National Accounts (SNA) that enable more detailed analysis of specific sectors or themes while remaining conceptually consistent with national GDP measurement (UNSD, 1993; BEA, 2021). Within the broader ocean accounting framework OESA form the economic component, focusing on the market-based output of ocean-related industries using monetary indicators aligned with the core principles of the SNA. OESAs allow for the economic output, intermediate consumption, and gross value added (GVA) of ocean-related sectors to be made visible by reclassifying and aggregating data from diverse industry groups, such as fisheries, marine transport, offshore energy, and coastal tourism, into a coherent statistical domain (Colgan, 2016). These activities are often embedded in broader sectors (e.g. agriculture, manufacturing, or transport) that mix ocean and non-ocean components. OESA methodologies use tools like supply-use tables and industry-level classifications to isolate the marine-relevant portions of economic activity in a way that is both transparent and replicable.

While the satellite accounting framework can support both economic and environmental extensions, existing OESA pilot studies have focused on market-based economic activities, in line with the definition of the ocean economy as comprising industries that directly depend on the ocean and generate measurable output (Colgan, 2016). OESA accounts, unlike the full ocean accounting framework, typically do not include physical environmental data or non-market ecosystem services, not due to methodological limitations, but because their primary objective is to quantify the economic contribution of ocean sectors using monetary indicators. This distinguishes OESA from other accounts such as Environmental Accounts often using physical and non-market data aligned with frameworks such as the SEEA (King et al., 2024). While these approaches serve complementary analytical purposes, the OESA enables the valuation of a country’s ocean economy in monetary terms by isolating and quantifying the contribution of ocean-related industries within the national accounting system. 

Ultimately, OESAs represent a foundational component of broader ocean accounts, which, when combined with ecosystem and natural capital accounts, can offer a comprehensive view of how the ocean supports national economies, communities, and ecosystems. A more holistic picture will emerge when these complementary approaches are developed in tandem.

A Comparative Review of International Experience in Ocean Economy Satellite Accounting

 As countries seek to better understand and manage the economic contributions of their marine sectors, several countries have piloted OESAs to capture the scope, scale, and structure of ocean-related activities within national statistical frameworks. Notable efforts include the United Kingdom, South Korea, Mozambique, and Jamaica - each contributing to the expanding field of ocean accounting. 

This section focuses on three leading examples, namely Portugal, the U.S., and Norway. These pilot studies were selected due to the availability of both comprehensive ocean economy accounts and detailed methodological documentation at the time of this study. In addition to data availability, each case was chosen for its relevance to a specific aspect of OESA development. Norway’s methodology was of particular interest for its explicit approach to estimating ocean “partials” from broader industry categories, offering practical guidance on dealing with the complexities of disaggregation. The U.S. case provides a clear and pragmatic definition of the ocean economy, built around a basic set of core industries that serves as a strong conceptual starting point for countries with limited data or institutional capacity. Portugal’s approach, by contrast offers a valuable example of how ocean economy accounts can evolve beyond core extractive and transport sectors. Its use of a value-chain and theme-based classification captures a broader range of economic linkages. This approach provides insights into how countries might progressively expand the scope of their OESA frameworks to reflect the full economic footprint of ocean-related activity.

These three case studies are analysed across three core dimensions: 

• The scope and definition of the ocean economy
• The indicators selected for measurement
• The methodological techniques employed

While each country’s approach reflects unique institutional contexts and data capabilities, the comparative analysis offers practical lessons for other countries interested in piloting or refining their own OESAs.

Scope and Definition of the Ocean Economy 

Each country defines its ocean economy somewhat differently, with the scope and definition adopted in national OESA frameworks shaped by distinct institutional priorities, marine geography, and the availability and quality of national data. However, common principles emerge activities that are either directly dependent on marine environments or require proximity to the coast for economic viability. These definitional choices influence the design of satellite accounts and shape what is ultimately measured and valued.

Portugal’s Satellite Account for the Seas (SAS), developed by Statistics Portugal and the Directorate-General for Maritime Policy, adopts a functional and spatial categorisation of ocean-related activities. The account distinguishes three levels of economic activity: 

i) characteristic, sea-related activities (including some on land whose products are for sea use)

ii) cross-cutting industries that support maritime operations (such as marine equipment, maritime services)

iii) coastal-dependent activities favoured by the proximity of the sea (including tourism and recreation). 

Operationally, the third tier is restricted to leisure-motivated expenditure on accommodation and restaurants and to the imputed rents of second homes, excluding business travel and, in Lisbon and Porto, counting only parishes where proximity to the sea materially influences rents. The SAS methodology argues that a purely spatial rule would overstate the ocean component. Therefore, this approach intends to capture sea-driven demand but, because motivation is not directly observable, one that cannot entirely rule out activity that is merely nearby. The SAS scope and definition structure reflects a comprehensive value-chain perspective, yet importantly excludes non-tradable marine ecosystem services, keeping the focus aligned with GDP-compatible economic production.

The U.S. OESA, compiled by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) in partnership with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), applies a geographic and functional definition. The ocean economy is defined to include activities taking place in U.S. oceans, marginal seas, the Great Lakes, and adjacent shorelines. Activities are included based on one or more of the following criteria: 

i) production occurs on ocean waters (e.g., offshore oil and gas), 

ii) the production requires ocean access or adjacency (e.g., marine construction), 

iii) or the outputs are primarily intended for ocean-related use (e.g., boats, marine equipment).

This definition reflects the U.S. focus on economic dependencies on marine space rather than administrative classifications or institutional boundaries.

Norway’s Ocean Satellite Account, developed by Statistics Norway with support from the Research Council of Norway and the OECD, used the OECD's definition of economic activities related to the ocean, which are activities that:

i) take place on or in the ocean

ii) produce goods and services primarily for use on or in the ocean

iii) extract non-living resources from the marine environment

iv) harvest living resources from the marine environment

v) use living resources harvested from the marine environment as intermediate inputs

vi) would likely not take place were they were not located in proximity to the ocean; or 

vii) gain a particular advantage by being located in proximity to the ocean. 

Norway’s approach is notable for its expanded sectoral coverage, including not only traditional ocean-based production but also knowledge-intensive services and public investments linked to the marine domain. While the current version of the account remains focused on market-based activities, Norway adopts a notably forward-looking approach by acknowledging future plans to incorporate ecosystem service valuation.

In addition to differing definitions, each country’s OESA also employs a distinct approach to classifying and grouping ocean-related activities. These classification systems reflect national economic structures and policy priorities, but they also influence the analytical scope of the satellite accounts. Portugal’s SAS adopts a broad thematic classification that includes not only extractive and transport-based industries but also infrastructure, equipment manufacturing, services, and emerging sectors such as marine biotechnology and renewable energy. The inclusion of categories like maritime governance, research, and finance indicates a value-chain perspective that extends beyond production alone. The U.S., by contrast, groups activities using functional categories based on national industry classifications, facilitating integration with the existing supply-use tables of the national accounts. While the U.S. approach includes marine construction, utilities, and public administration such as national defence, it is more selective regarding emerging sectors. Norway strikes a balance between these approaches, with detailed breakdowns in offshore services, marine research, and maritime equipment, and an explicit emphasis on marine research and development and innovation.

These differences in classification underscore how satellite accounts are shaped by both statistical frameworks and the strategic interests of the countries that produce them. This suggests that for countries looking to develop OESAs the classification structure selected should  reflect the country’s economic composition, data availability, and policy goals; however, this should be consistent with the principles of national accounting. Table 1 compares key areas of classification emphasis across the three case studies.

Table 1: Comparison of Ocean Economy Classifications

Source: Author’s own, based on Statistics Portugal and Directorate-General for Maritime Policy (2016); Bureau of Economic Analysis (2022); Ånestad et al. (2022).

Indicators Measured

The selection of economic indicators within OESAs reflects a deliberate effort to align ocean-related statistics with national accounting standards, particularly those set out in the 2008 SNA; the 2025 SNA has since been adopted and retains the core framework while clarifying and extending treatments in areas such as digitalisation, globalisation and sustainability reporting (European Commission and International Monetary Fund, 2025). Across the three case studies assessed, a broadly consistent set of core indicators is used to measure the contribution of marine and coastal industries to the national economy. These include:

i) Gross Output: the total value of goods and services produced in ocean-related sectors.

ii) Gross Value Added (GVA): the key measure of each sector’s net contribution to GDP.

iii) Employment: typically expressed in full-time equivalents (FTEs) or jobs.

iv) Investment: generally measured as gross fixed capital formation (GFCF).

v) Trade: imports and exports of goods and services relevant to ocean industries.

This core set is essential for ensuring that the OESA outputs are comparable to other sectors within the national economy and usable in macroeconomic modelling and planning frameworks. However, beyond this core, Table 2 demonstrates the variation in the breadth of indicators used across countries, reflecting differing analytical objectives and data capacities. For instance, Portugal’s SAS incorporates compensation of employees, gross operating surplus, and a detailed breakdown of intermediate consumption, providing a more granular view of factor income distribution within ocean industries. It also estimates investment by industry, capturing capital intensity in sectors such as port infrastructure and marine equipment manufacturing.

Table 2: Comparative Table of OESA Methodologies by Sector

Source: Author’s Own based on Statistics Portugal and Directorate-General for Maritime Policy (2016); Bureau of Economic Analysis (2022); Ånestad et al. (2022).

 In contrast, the U.S. OESA adopts a focused set of GDP-aligned indicators, being gross output, gross value added (GVA), employment, and trade, to estimate the economic contribution of ocean-related industries. This selection reflects a production-based approach that prioritises consistency with the national accounting framework and comparability across sectors. The U.S. account employs sectoral coefficients (otherwise known as economic ‘partials’) to identify and isolate the ocean-related components of mixed industries, ensuring alignment with the supply-use structure of the national accounts. 

Norway’s Ocean Account adopts a more expansive approach. In addition to standard indicators, it includes marine research and development investment, insurance and financial services GVA, and plans to incorporate ecosystem service valuation in future updates. This reflects a conceptual extension of the ocean economy beyond extractive or transport-based industries, acknowledging the growing relevance of knowledge-based and service-oriented marine sectors.

Implications for consistency and comparability:

• Internal reconciliation. The U.S. extraction from SUTs, coupled with published partials, maximises traceability and reproducibility within national-accounts totals, aiding cross-country comparability where others follow the same anchoring.
• Distributional and external-account detail. Portugal’s more granular factor-income and trade detail increases analytical power (income distribution, external balances) but requires clear mappings when comparing to countries that publish a leaner GDP-style core only. 
• Targeted external estimation. Norway’s selective use of non-SUT sources raises fitness-for-purpose in ocean-specific domains while introducing method heterogeneity across indicators; transparent documentation of sources and SUT-reconciliation rules preserves comparability.

In summary, the three pilots illustrate different pathways to measuring the ocean economy. Portugal provides a broad and detailed picture, extending beyond the core aggregates to include distributional measures and external accounts, while remaining consistent with the European System of Accounts. The U.S. prioritises a leaner set of indicators that are tightly anchored to the supply–use tables, ensuring internal consistency and ease of comparison across sectors. Norway blends core SUT-based measures with carefully selected external data sources, enabling the identification of ocean-specific activities that standard classifications tend to obscure. These choices shape the types of questions each account can answer: Portugal’s system supports analysis of income distribution and trade; the U.S. account facilitates assessments of sectoral contributions to GDP; and Norway’s approach brings visibility to specialised ocean activities that matter for targeted industrial and policy development. 

Lessons for countries designing OESAs:

1. Classification: Begin with a core set of well-established ocean sectors - living resources (fisheries and aquaculture), construction, transportation, tourism, ship and boat building, and minerals (mining) - as these are widely recognised, easier to measure, and provide a stable foundation for expansion.
2. Indicators: Start with the core four (gross output, GVA, employment, GFCF) from your supply–use tables; add trade where you can balance it.
3. Publish what your supply–use tables can support. It is possible to extend beyond the core indicators to include factor-income detail, intermediate consumption, and trade, but only if these can be properly reconciled through the supply–use framework. Portugal’s approach illustrates this: richer detail is published, but always within the balancing rules of the European System of Accounts (Portugal’s model).
4. Use partials systematically for mixed industries (where only part of an industry’s output is ocean-related, such as aquaculture (marine vs. freshwater) or shipbuilding (ocean-going vs. other) and publish the data sources and allocation rules (U.S.’s model).
5. Reserve external sources for clearly ocean-specific but poorly classified domains, and document reconciliation to SUTs (Norway’s model).
6. Flag scope choices so users can interpret cross-country level differences.

Implications of the SNA 2025 Update 

The 2025 SNA (European Commission and International Monetary Fund, 2025) leaves the core production and income framework intact, so OESA headline indicators - gross output, GVA, employment, GFCF and (where published) trade - remain valid and comparable over time. Under SNA 2025, the term “satellite account” is formally replaced with “thematic account” or “extended account.” A thematic account rearranges and disaggregates core SNA data to highlight specific economic dimensions, whereas an extended account ventures beyond SNA’s production boundary to integrate external datasets. The update includes heightened coverage of natural capital, intangible assets, and digital platforms. While these expansions don't immediately affect core indicators like GVA, they open pathways for future OESA enhancements, especially as ocean sectors increasingly intertwine with innovation and digital marine services. Countries can therefore continue compiling OESAs using current methods but should note that existing results were produced under SNA 2008 and include a short bridge note outlining any future enhancements consistent with SNA 2025 guidance.

Stepwise Approach to Developing an Ocean Economy Satellite Account

When considering the development of an OESA, countries need to build on the System of National Accounts (SNA) and established satellite accounting methods. This foundation is essential because it ensures that ocean economy statistics are not produced in isolation but remain comparable with national GDP and other sectors of the economy. Satellite accounting provides a structured way to extend the core accounts, giving flexibility to capture the unique features of marine industries while maintaining international consistency and credibility. A consistent methodological foundation has been outlined in OECD's Blueprint for Improved Measurement of the International Ocean Economy (OECD, 2021) and the Global Ocean Accounts Partnership technical guidance document (GOAP, 2024), among others. 

At its core, the development of an OESA involves the following key steps:

i) Define the Scope of the Ocean Economy

ii) Classify Ocean-Related Economic Activities

iii) Select the Accounting Framework

iv) Estimate the Ocean Economy Share

v) Compile Core Indicators

vi) Ensure Data Integration and Consistency

vii) Validate and Interpret Results

The first step is to delineate which industries are considered part of the ocean economy. This involves identifying both established sectors (e.g., fisheries, marine transport, offshore energy) and emerging sectors (e.g., marine biotechnology, renewable ocean energy). International guidance (OECD, 2016) provides a basis for categorising activities into ocean-based, ocean-related, and coastal-dependent, but definitions must be tailored to the national context.

Once the scope is defined, the next step is to map relevant industries to existing national accounting classifications (such as ISIC, NACE, or NAICS). This enables the use of national supply-use tables and economic statistics while maintaining alignment with international comparability. Where activities are embedded in broader industry categories, methods must be used to identify the ocean-related share.

Two main approaches exist for constructing satellite accounts; a thematic approach, which disaggregates the core national accounts to isolate selected activities, and a supply–use approach, which embeds those activities within the full input–output structure of the economy. Thematic satellite accounts can be generated by disaggregating the production and generation of income accounts (van de Ven, 2021). These accounts provide an overview, by economic activity, of output and the inputs required to produce the outputs. Within this method, a thematic satellite account would separate and estimate output, value-added, and employment generated by the applicable economic activities to finally arrive at a summary indicator. For example, the contribution of a theme to GDP and total employment. The alternative method is using the supply and use framework which provides a far more comprehensive description of the focus area and increases the analytical usefulness of the satellite accounts (OECD, 2021). More details become available on the linkages with the rest of the economy through the use of other goods and services in production, which allows for the estimation of the indirect impact of the additional output of goods and services by the activities considered. 

Once the scope of the ocean economy has been defined and relevant sectors identified, the next critical step in constructing a satellite account involves estimating the ocean-related share of economic activity within each sector. For sectors that are not exclusively marine, estimating the ocean-related component of economic activity requires careful methodological adaptation. One common approach is direct attribution, whereby marine activities are separately identified within national statistics and can be extracted without the need for disaggregation or approximation. This method is most feasible when national accounts already include sufficient granularity, such as through sectoral breakdowns or dedicated industry classifications (OECD, 2021).

In cases where such disaggregation is not available, countries have employed ratio-based estimation techniques, often referred to as the partial ocean approach. Partials are industries which include both ocean and non-ocean related activity (Ånestad et al., 2022; Colgan, 2016). This involves applying ocean economy coefficients to broader industry aggregates, derived from auxiliary sources such as administrative data, industry reports, or expert input. Both the U.S. and Norway have used this method to estimate the ocean-related share of economic sectors that are only partially engaged in marine activities (BEA & NOAA, 2020; Statistics Norway, 2022). For example, in the case of fisheries or aquaculture, products may be derived from both inland (freshwater) and coastal (marine) resources, ratios are used to isolate the marine-relevant proportion.

A third methodological tool involves the use of supplementary data to refine these estimates. These can include administrative records such as licensing and permitting data, geospatial information to determine coastal proximity or offshore locations, and industry-specific surveys that provide detailed insights into production processes and output shares. Together, these approaches support a flexible and evidence-based estimation of the ocean economy share, while ensuring compatibility with the national accounting framework (GOAP, 2024; OECD, 2016).

The standard core indicators compiled in satellite accounts include output, GVA, employment, with some countries also reporting trade-related measures where data permit (Statistics Portugal and Directorate-General for Maritime Policy, 2016). The compilation of satellite accounts may require relying on other data sources that are not used in compiling macro-economic statistics. In these cases, it is necessary to establish an appropriate link between the alternative data sources and the already existing sources and methodologies for compiling national account estimates (OECD, 2021).

Finally, satellite accounts should be validated through comparison with industry sources and official statistics and contextualised within broader policy or sustainability objectives. The results are typically reported as a separate account that can feed into broader macroeconomic models. 

Conclusion

 This comparative review demonstrates that credible and comparable measurement of the ocean economy is feasible when compilation is anchored in the SNA and when scope choices are clearly documented. The three pilots examined reveal distinct but complementary design logics: Portugal extends beyond core aggregates to provide distributional and external-account detail within an ESA-consistent framework; the U.S. prioritises a lean set of indicators that are reconciled to supply–use tables using published partials; and Norway combines SUT-based estimation with carefully selected external sources to reveal ocean-specific activities that standard classifications do not capture well. These choices entail different strengths including analytical richness (Portugal), internal coherence and comparability (U.S.), and sectoral specificity (Norway) and, taken together, provide a practical suite of approaches for prospective compilers.

From these experiences, several operational lessons follow. First, begin with a core set of established sectors and indicators and expand only where supply–use tables can sustain consistent balancing. Second, use partials systematically to isolate the ocean share of mixed industries and publish the underlying data sources and allocation rules. Third, when standard industry categories don’t capture ocean-related activity, use external sources but reconcile them transparently to the central accounts. Finally, make scope decisions explicit so that users can interpret level differences across countries.

Taken together, these findings suggest a pragmatic sequencing for new adopters: establish a narrowly defined, SUT-consistent core; document partials and scope rules; and expand coverage selectively as data systems mature. Such an approach preserves comparability, facilitates replication, and ensures that ocean economy statistics can be integrated into national decision-making with confidence.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Global Ocean Accounts Partnership (GOAP) for support with design and layout of the working paper and for technical review provided by Philip James and Eliza Northrop. Any remaining errors are the authors’ own, and the views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of GOAP.

‌References 

 Ånestad, K. and Nickelsen, E. (2022). Ocean satellite account: Description of methods and sources. Statistics Norway. ISBN 978-82-587-1523-5. https://www.ssb.no/en/nasjonalregnskap-og-konjunkturer/konjunkturer/artikler/ocean-satellite-account.description-of-methods-and-sources/_/attachment/inline/8c126fa0-31a3-4af0-a9f6-ea58affc51c2:07f96824a693253829ee08012e3938c1c8f47e61/NOT2022-17.pdf

Barbier, E.B. (2012). Progress and Challenges in Valuing Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Services. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 6(1), pp.1–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rer017

Bax, N., Novaglio, C., Maxwell, K.H., Meyers, K., McCann, J., Jennings, S., Frusher, S., Fulton, E.A., Nursey-Bray, M., Fischer, M., Anderson, K., Layton, C., Emad, G.R., Alexander, K.A., Rousseau, Y., Lunn, Z. and Carter, C.G. (2022). Ocean resource use: building the coastal blue economy. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 32(1), 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09636-0

Bennett, N.J., Cisneros-Montemayor, A.M., Blythe, J. et al. (2019). Towards a sustainable and equitable blue economy. Nature Sustainability, 2, 991–993. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0404-1

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). (2022). Marine economy satellite account, 2014–2020. Bureau of Economic Analysis. https://www.bea.gov/news/2022/marine-economy-satellite-account-2014-2020

Colgan, C.S. (2013). The ocean economy of the United States: Measurement, distribution, & trends. Ocean & Coastal Management, 71, pp.334–343. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.08.018. 

Colgan, C.S. (2016). Measurement of the Ocean Economy: From National Income Accounts to the Sustainable Blue Economy. Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics, 2(2), Article 12.

Costanza, R. (2020). Valuing natural capital and ecosystem services toward the goals of efficiency, fairness, and sustainability. Ecosystem Services, 43, 101096.

European Commission, International Monetary Fund. (2025). System of National Accounts 2025 Pre edit version. Available at: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/nationalaccount/docs/2025_SNA_Pre-edit.pdf [Accessed 13 Aug. 2025].

Faccioli, M., McVittie, A., Glenk, K. and Blackstock, K. (2018). Natural capital accounts: Review of available data and accounting options. Dundee: The James Hutton Institute.

Fenichel, E.P., Milligan, B., Porras, I., et al. (2020). National Accounting for the Ocean and Ocean Economy. World Resources Institute. https://www.oceanpanel.org/blue-papers/national-accounting-ocean-ocean-economy

Global Ocean Accounts Partnership (2024). “Technical Guidance on Ocean Accounting for Sustainable Development”. Centre for Sustainable Development Reform.

Kildow, J.T. (2022). The Importance of Understanding the Ocean's Economic Value for a Sustainable Future. Marine Technology Society Journal, 56(1), pp.9–10.

Kildow, J.T., Colgan, C.S., and Johnston, P. (2016). State of the U.S. Ocean and Coastal Economies 2016 Update. Publications. https://cbe.miis.edu/noep_publications/18

King, S., Agra, R., Zolyomi, A., Keith, H., Nicholson, E., de Lamo, X., Portela, R., Obst, C., Alam, M., Honzák, M., Valbuena, R., Nunes, P.A.L.D., Santos-Martin, F., Equihua, M., Pérez-Maqueo, O., Javorsek, M., Alfieri, A. and Brown, C. (2024) ‘Using the system of environmental-economic accounting ecosystem accounting for policy: A case study on forest ecosystems’, Environmental Science & Policy, 152, 103653. 

Liu, S., Costanza, R., Farber, S. and Troy, A. (2010). Valuing ecosystem services. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1185(1), pp.54–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05167.x

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2016). The Ocean Economy in 2030. OECD Publishing. https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264251724-en

Rayner, R., Jolly, C. and Gouldman, C. (2019). Ocean Observing and the Blue Economy. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00330

Shen, C., Zheng, W., Shi, H., Ding, D. and Wang, Z. (2015). Assessment and regulation of ocean health based on ecosystem services: Case study in the Laizhou Bay, China. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 34(12), pp.61–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13131-015-0777-6

Statistics Portugal and Directorate-General for Maritime Policy. (2016). Satellite Account for the Sea – 2010-2013: Methodological Report. Lisbon: Statistics Portugal.

Sumaila, U.R., Walsh, M., Hoareau, K. and Cox, A. (2023). Greening the Ocean Economy. Frontiers in Environmental Economics, 1, p.1096303.

United Nations. (2014). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012—Central Framework. United Nations, European Union, FAO, IMF, OECD, The World Bank. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/eea_white_cover.pdf

van de Ven, P. (2021). Developing thematic satellite accounts. OECD Statistics Working Papers, No. 2021/02, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/b833cbfa-en