Page Comparison

Table of Contents

...

• The ocean is large, three-dimensional, moving, much is outside national jurisdictions and spatial data are collected by many local, national and international organizations. This poses challenges to mapping; therefore, only 20 percent of the ocean seafloor has been mapped in terms of depth (bathymetry) and less than 0.001 percent has been sampled in terms of substrate and biota (DOALOS, 2016, Chapter 33). Only the surface of the ocean is visible from satellite. This requires special attention to establishing a spatial data infrastructure that will serve to integrate many types of data including from local in situ studies.

• The Ocean Accounts Framework accommodates both spatially explicit and spatially independent information. For example, statistics documenting protection and management expenditures might be compiled at a national level without spatial detail. Accounts on ecosystem extent, condition and services supply might be built up from site-level data.

• Spatially explicit data are more easily compiled into Ocean Accounts when they are standardized according to an agreed National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI). An NSDI may include or be independent of a national Marine Spatial Data Infrastructure (MSDI). A comprehensive NSDI would set the spatial standards for the common treatment of data on terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine areas. The coastal and marine components of such an NSDI would include information on bathymetry and extend to the country’s EEZ. The entire NSDI/MSDI would include a common definition of “coastal”, an agreed shoreline, a shared classification of ecosystem types, agreed projections and scales, as well as common protocols for assessing, integrating and updating data. This then becomes the standard for compiling spatial ocean data within a Geographic Information System (GIS).

...

• MBSUs designate a three-dimensional volume of ocean including the seabed and subsoil. Alternatively, depending on technical capacity, it could also be considered as several integrated vertical layers: surface, water column, seafloor and sub-seafloor.

  • CBSUs designate a three-dimensional volume of shallow coastal waters (including seabed and subsoil) and a two-dimensional area of land, delineated by a Shoreline Vector.

  • TBSUs designate two-dimensional areas or three-dimensional volumes of land. (Note: Terrestrial land and ecosystem accounting frameworks are, at present, predominantly based on a two-dimensional spatial framework. Use of an integrated three-dimensional framework for both terrestrial and ocean accounting is being considered as part of the SEEA revision process. For example, a three-dimensional spatial infrastructure for terrestrial ecosystems would help distinguishing tree canopy from underlying grasses and wetlands. The spatial framework presented in this guidance anticipates this change but is intended to be practically interoperable with current two-dimensional terrestrial accounting.) Being the foundation of terrestrial environmental-economic accounting, TBSUs are beyond the scope of the Ocean Accounts Framework.

  • The summary tables suggested for Ocean Accounts generally show summary data on extent, condition, services supply or value by ET.

  • Ideally information is compiled with enough spatial detail to establish relationships between the components of the framework (assets, input flows, output flows, economy and governance). Tables outlined below are aggregated spatially for reporting purposes by “accounting area”, which could be all national coastal and marine areas, smaller administrative areas such as provinces or marine management areas, or environmental areas such as MPAs. The Malaysia ESCAP Ocean Accounts pilot has compiled accounts maintaining separation between inshore (continental shelf) from offshore (deep sea) areas.

• Neighbouring countries could compile comparable Ocean Accounts to study the transboundary impacts and impacts relating to flows to and from Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ). It would then be useful to have a common spatial data infrastructure among these countries.

...

• Assets are things of value to society—the natural, human, financial, social, intellectual, and produced wealth from which we derive benefits. The ocean is such an asset, but it is often not appropriately valued in decisions and plans. A cornerstone of the Ocean Accounts Framework is to provide a means to comprehensively measure the embodied wealth of the ocean, represented not only in terms of short-term financial gain, but also in terms of longer-term sustainability.

• In economics, assets are defined as stores of value that, in many situations, also provide inputs to production processes. More recently, there has been consideration of the value inherent in the components of the environment and the inputs the environment provides to society in general and particularly, the economy. The terms “environmental asset” and “natural capital” are commonly used to denote the source of these inputs, which may be measured in both physical and monetary terms. The Ocean Accounts Framework covers a subset of environmental assets that are located wholly or partly seaward of the mean high-water line, including coastal and marine areas. Note: that the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention establishes a territorial sea baseline as the spatial boundary between territory and maritime zones. These baselines are either the low-water line along the coast or straight lines designated in accordance with Part II Section 2 of the Convention. The spatial scope of ocean assets (and consequently ocean accounts) is based on biophysical factors and is decoupled from legal boundaries between territory and maritime space.

• It would be beneficial for the application of the framework to include produced capital (infrastructure, such as ports, bridges, and harbours) and human capital in the definition of ocean assets. In some respects, produced capital provides a service, it is at risk of extreme events and its construction and operation impacts the environment. Similarly, human, and intellectual capital is enhanced by learning about and experiencing the ocean, which is considered a cultural ecosystem service. Given the complexity of working through the accounting implications, this will be a topic of future research (See Research agenda for ocean accounting).

...

• The SEEA–CF and SEEA–EEA establish a general classification of environmental assets that can be directly applied for ocean accounting purposes, as follows:

  • Individual environmental assets as defined by the SEEA-CF:

  • Minerals and energy resources: including deposits of oil, natural gas, coal and peat, non-metallic minerals, and metallic minerals, including scarce or valuable dissolved minerals,

  • Land and seabed: delineating the space in which economic activities and environmental processes take place and within which environmental assets and economic assets are located. For ocean accounting purposes, land also includes areas covered by water at high tide, the seabed within a country’s exclusive economic zone, and a country’s continental shelf defined in accordance with the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention.

  • Soil and seabed substrata: including semi-terrestrial soils of the intertidal area, and seabed substrata types such as rock, coarse sediment, mixed sediment, sand and muddy sand, and mud and sandy mud.

  • Timber resources: defined by the volume of trees, living or dead, including all trees regardless of diameter, tops of stems, large branches and dead trees lying on the ground that can still be used for timber or fuel. Mangrove forests are the principal living source of timber resources within the spatial scope of Ocean Accounts.

  • Aquatic resources: including cultivated or naturally occurring fish, crustaceans, molluscs, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms such as sponges and seaweed, as well as aquatic mammals such as whales. The aquatic resources for a given country comprise those resources that live within maritime zone limits throughout their life cycles. Migrating and straddling fish stocks are considered to belong to a country during the period when those stocks inhabit its EEZ. Note: See also SEEA–CF Section 5.9.2 concerning accounting for highly migratory and straddling fish stocks, and fish stocks that complete their life cycle on the high seas.

  • Other biological resources: including cultivated or naturally occurring animals and plants other than timber and aquatic resources. This could include coastal crops, livestock and wild foods contributing to a broader definition of ocean economy.

  • Water resources: including fresh and brackish water in inland water bodies, including groundwater and soil water, focusing on abstraction from the ocean and outflows to the ocean. Seawater has not been treated as an asset in the past, although its supply and use are included in water accounts.

  • Ecosystem assets as defined by the SEEA-EEA:

  • Ecosystems: namely dynamic complexes of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit (As defined in Article 2 of the Convention on Biological Diversity). Ecosystem assets are an important focus of ocean accounting because they yield flows of valuable, and in many cases irreplaceable, benefits to people. Ecosystems are classified by type (e.g., forest, mangrove, seagrass) and characterized by their extent, condition, and use.

• There are overlaps between individual environmental assets and ecosystem assets. For example, a coral reef ecosystem includes the aquatic resources (fish, crustaceans, and plants) that live in it. This is not so much an issue for the physical measures of extent, condition, and use; coral reefs are represented in hectares of area they cover, fish are represented by the tonnes of stock of a species. However, when these come to be valued in monetary terms, the value of a hectare of coral reef likely includes the value of the fish living in it. Keeping both individual environmental assets and ecosystem assets in the same tables will encourage examining the comprehensiveness of ecosystem services valuations. For example, determining whether all assets have been considered. It will also encourage avoidance of double counting if assets valued are made explicit.

...

• Ecosystem types (ETs) should be classified so they can be consistently organised within the ocean accounting framework over time. There is currently no international standard classification of ocean ecosystems. Many global and regional classifications exist (Appendix 6.7). Some are based on habitat types, benthic properties or a combination of characteristics such as depth, temperature, geology, chemical composition, biota, etc.

• Coastal and marine ecosystems often considered in assessments include (but are not limited to):

  • Coastal: beaches, (sand dominated), seagrass beds, mangrove forests, intertidal and subtidal rocky shores, oyster reefs, kelp forests, and tropical coral reefs,

  • Marine (to shelf): benthic soft-bottom habitats (sponges and sessile filter feeders), phytoplankton communities (upper water column), zooplankton communities (upper and mid water column)

  • Marine (shelf to EEZ): Aphotic benthic sessile communities, uninhabited soft bottom (e.g., sand,), uninhabited rock, pelagic phytoplankton (upper water column), zooplankton communities (upper and mid water column), migratory pelagic species (pelagic fish and cetaceans).

• The lack of detailed data on the open ocean results from the lack of historical research on open ocean benthic ecosystems. Due to the lack of data on biota existing there (less than 0.001 percent has been sampled quantitatively, (DOALOS, 2016, Chapter 33)), such deep-sea environments are often characterized by their landform (e.g., seamounts, hydrothermal vents) and substrate (sandy, rocky). Two biotic communities often identified include cold-water/deep-water corals and sponges.

• The SEEA Ecosystems revision process has agreed to consider the IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology (GET, described below) as a “reference classification”. That is, in the absence of an agreed national classification of ecosystems, the GET is considered a useful starting point as well as a reference for international comparison.

• The IUCN GET was developed by the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Thematic Group. It combines process-based and biogeographic approaches across the whole planet, with the aim of developing a scalable framework that supports generalisations about groups of functionally-similar ecosystems and recognises different expressions within these groups defined by contrasting biotic composition (Note: Details omitted pending publication) The broad structure of this global ecosystem typology is listed in Figure 5 below. A list of realms, biomes and ecosystem functional groups relevant to ocean accounting is provided in Appendix 6.2.

• Since Ocean Accounts require the establishment of ETs, classification at the functional group (Level 3) may be most useful. At this level, the IUCN GET identifies 22 marine functional groups (such as seagrass meadows) and 12 transitional functional groups (such as intertidal forests and shrublands (mangroves)). Although ecosystem assets can be disaggregated to the species level, this is rarely useful for broad assessments of ecosystem services and benefits, given the current state of data. However, information at the local ecosystem type (Level 6) may be relevant for specific issues or very localised natural resource management.

• ESCAP has developed a feasibility study for mapping global ocean ecosystems, based on the United States’ Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification System (CMECS). CMECS (See Appendix 6.7) classifies the environment into biogeographic and aquatic settings that are differentiated by features influencing the distribution of organisms, and by salinity, tidal zone, and proximity to the coast. Within these systems are four underlying components: water column, geoform, substrate and biota. CMECS may provide more detailed classes for some marine ecosystems.

...

Figure 5. Structure of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems global ecosystem typology

Source: https://iucnrleglobal-ecosystems.org/about-rle/ongoing-initiatives/global-ecosystem-typology/page/typology

...

• The IUCN-GET is undergoing testing through the SEEA Ecosystem revision process. This entails comparison with existing national classifications. Testing and experimentation with the IUCN-GET and CMECS in future pilot studies is encouraged.

...

...

Note: Darkly shaded areas represent undefined measures for ecosystem assets (extractions/harvesting) and expansion of minerals stocks. Terminology still requires harmonization between SEEA-CF and SEEA-EEA. For example, extraction/harvesting refers to individual assets in the SEEA-CF. Ecosystem assets are treated in the SEEA-EEA more like land cover types, which are added to and reduced by area through managed/natural expansion/regression.

• In Table 1 “individual environmental assets” are non-ecosystem assets, such as minerals or aquatic resources as defined in the SEEA-CF. Ecosystems are accounted for in terms of area (Although there has been some discussion of accounting for ocean ecosystems in terms of volume) of ecosystem types (ETs). Individual environmental assets are measured in units specific to the asset (tonnes, m³, etc.). Reasons for additions and reductions are also different for each individual asset, depending on whether it is living and/or mobile. Table 1 could be expanded to include many ecosystem types and many individual assets (e.g., distinguishing different species of fish, crustaceans, molluscs, seaweeds, etc.).

• It is possible to attribute monetary values to some ocean assets. Monetary Ocean Asset Accounts are described in Monetary Asset Accounts.

• There are no agreed condition indicators for all asset types. Ecosystems can be generally assessed in terms of their biodiversity, productivity, levels of pollutants, etc. Individual environmental assets each require their own indicators of condition. Minerals may be high or low quality, accessible or inaccessible. Fish may be assessed in terms of health or age of the stock.

• Table 2 provides a structure for reporting the summary of condition measures for ocean assets. As with extent, this would be built up from more detailed tables on the location of individual ecosystem or individual assets, condition measures over time (e.g., degree heating weeks based on sea surface temperature), and more complex source measures (e.g., distances of specific assets from population centres). This could then be summarized over ecosystem types and individual environmental asset types as in Table 3.

...

Notes: This Physical Asset table can be combined with other Tables that record information for each Spatial Unit in the accounting framework, for example Table 16 on governance.

• Condition accounts in the SEEA Ecosystems revision discussions distinguish between “variables”, which are summaries of basic measures and “indicators”, which are the same measures indexed according to a reference condition. A reference condition could be a condition measured or estimated for the past or an “ideal” condition determined by scientific consensus.

• There also is an ongoing discussion within the SEEA Ecosystems revision process regarding the treatment of biodiversity within the ecosystem accounting framework. Further, the aspiration that such tables can be produced for different depth layers is optimistic in that standard spatial techniques for managing and summarizing such data have not yet been developed.

...

Note: Dark grey cells are null by definition. In this case, ocean services flow from the environment. Natural inputs are used by the economic sector that extracts, harvests or captures them.

...

• In practice, households supply many of their own services from Ocean Assets (e.g. subsistence fishing, collection of firewood). To maintain compatibility with the SEEA and the broader integrity of the accounts, natural inputs must first be supplied by an industry sector. Consequently, the cell marked with an asterisk (*) is null by definition, since for supply purposes, households are included in the industry supplying that natural input (fishing, energy).

• Note that in Table 5, the row for supply of “Ocean Services” is greyed out other than for the column “Ocean Services (From environment)”. This cell could show an aggregate monetary amount or be detailed in terms of physical quantities for each service. The physical quantities would include all natural inputs including fish captured, minerals extracted, and other services supplied.

• Physical quantities of natural inputs extracted, harvested or captured are generally not as well recorded as the monetary value of those inputs. However, in many countries, quantities of fish catch, aquaculture production, or timber harvesting are reported in administrative records or sample surveys. Income from these activities is more likely to be reported, since this is required to estimate the value of production in the SNA and to calculate taxes. Knowing the total value and price of a given commodity (e.g., dollars per kg of fish) allows the estimation of the physical quantities (e.g., kg of fish). This applies equally to minerals, timber, water, fish, crops and livestock.

• Ocean economy satellite accounts record the economic performance of ocean-related industry sectors. Production statistics used to establish this performance would also include data on the quantity and value of natural inputs supplied. Reconciling the services perspective of the SEEA with the sectoral perspective of the ocean economy satellite accounts is an item for future research.

• Although the SNA, in theory, captures small-scale industry and subsistence household supply of natural inputs, they are sometimes missed in economic surveys. Some countries have conducted special surveys to capture this detail. For example, UN Environment augmented Ethiopia’s SNA with a household survey to determine the importance of forest ecosystem services to rural households. This resulted in an increase of the estimated contribution of forests to GDP from 3.8% to 6.1%. Statistics Canada added questions to its biannual Households and the Environment survey to determine the quantities of residential fuelwood consumed. Although the objective was to estimate air emissions, it also provides a potential for calculating the market value of the wood. Fisheries and Oceans Canada conducts a Survey of Recreational Fishing in Canada, which captures the number of anglers, the quantities of fish caught and related expenditures. The U.S. Forest Service periodically conducts a national survey of outdoor recreation, which is the basis for the outdoor recreation satellite account. In the U.S., there are also national surveys of recreational fishing, which are used to add recreational fishing effort into fisheries management planning.

• Efforts by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) have led to a survey and toolkit which examines the subsistence and recreational supply of ocean- related natural inputs, relevant to small scale fisheries in national accounts. Other efforts include the Environmental Defense Fund’s work on community-level fisheries in Baja California, Mexico since 2015 to create satellite fishery accounts for remote fishing villages.

• The SEEA-CF presents separate supply and use tables for each natural input, such as water, energy and individual materials. This allows for representing the full set of flows from environment (first supplier) to first user (economic units extracting, harvesting or capturing), transformation into products, consumption of those products and eventual release back to the environment as residuals. Regarding this as a multi-stage supply-use chain (supplier to user, user becomes supplier to new users) helps enforce the accounting principles that “supply equals use”. That is, the total supply of natural inputs equals the total use of natural inputs. This requires unique units of measure for each table, such as tonnes of fish, m³ of water. PJ of energy or dollars. For this reason, the SEEA-CF maintains separate tables for each natural input.

• SEEA-EEA presents the supply and use of ecosystem services provided by each ecosystem type. Some provisioning services can be traced from supplier to user as “materials” as in the SEEA-CF but regulating and maintenance and cultural services are not obvious direct inputs to production processes. The Ocean Accounts Framework merges the two perspectives, but this would result in a very complex table.

• For the Ocean Accounts, it would also be practical to keep separate tables for each ocean service. That is, separate tables for fish of different types, energy, water, materials, etc. as in the SEEA-CF (SEEA-CF Tables 3.5 and 3.6) as well as for each ecosystem service. The structure in Table 5 could then be used as a summary.

• To link to asset information (extent and condition of different ecosystem types), spatial information on the location of the supply of these ocean services could be recorded in the underlying spatial database.

• A separate table, then could also be constructed summarizing the supply of all ocean services (including abiotic), as in Table 6. For simplicity, this is shown without the implied transformation into products and eventual release to the environment as residuals. As with the generic supply and use in Table 5, services are initially supplied by the environment, but used by many economic units. Businesses, governments, households, and the “rest of the world” (exports). In an actual table, industries would be detailed by sectors relying most on ocean services. For example, the coastal and marine tourism industry may be dependent on water purification, coastal protection, habitat provision, amenity and recreation services.

• Quantifying these dependencies, though further research, would contribute to the creation of “economic production functions”. That is, detailing the inputs required by an economic sector including ecosystem services in physical and monetary terms. This is further discussed in terms of valuation of ecosystem services in Monetary Flow.

...

Note: Dark grey cells are null by definition. In this case, the environment provides the services and economic sectors use them.

...

Table 7. Examples of ocean services by ecosystem type

...

Note: iff < WTP means “if and only if avoidance cost is less than Willingness to Pay”

...

Table 9. Tiered approach to valuation of ecosystem services approaches

Notes: * e.g., applying a single fixed percentage based on a research study across all estimates

** Resource Rent approach also covers some income less costs methods

***using the 50% median approach

**** Marginal Value Pricing potentially (few applications so far)

***** Water is not the result of ecosystem processes; therefore, water supply may better be seen as an abiotic service (editor’s note).

...

2.5 Flows to the environment accounts (residuals)

...

Note: See Table 3.8 in the SEEA-CF. “Other” industries could include for example aquaculture and coastal tourism. “Releases to other economic units” are emissions to the sewerage industry. “Direct emissions” are releases to the environment including those released by the sewerage industry. For example, agriculture releases BOD quantities in Drainage basin 1 in the amounts of A directly to the environment and B to the sewerage industry. This is recorded as C in total supply of releases to other economic units. The sewerage industry removes all but D, which is added to A directly released by agriculture to E, which is the total direct emissions. E is also the total released to the environment and total use of direct emissions. EO is the proportion estimated to flow to the ocean.

• Supply and use of solid wastes (Table 11) are more complex, since several industries not only generate solid wastes, but also use them as products in recycling, incineration and landfill. The table shows detail by location of generation and use of waste residuals and could be expanded to include many more substances. In the “use” part of the table, solid waste residuals disposed of in the environment are distinguished by those flowing directly to the ocean.

...

Note: Dark grey cells are null by definition. Solid waste products are solid wastes that are discarded but resold by other industries. The table could further distinguish quantities recovered from the ocean. Ideally, the table would also distinguish the generation and use of solid waste products spatially. This would allow tracing flows of reused/recycled materials between spatial areas and eventually to the ocean.

Table 11. Physical supply and use of solid waste residuals (continued)

Note: Solid wastes are collected, sent to landfill, incinerated, sent to treatment, used by other industries, exported or discarded to the environment. Solid waste products are used by recycling, other treatment, other industries or exported.

...

• Table 12 below summarizes air emissions, water emissions, wastewater and solid wastes flowing to the ocean. Ideally, the table shows the sector and drainage basin of the source. It records the estimated flows from sources that could potentially enter the ocean environment. For example, in the case of greenhouse gas emissions — the estimated emissions absorbed / buffered by oceans. The table could be combined with accounts of flows to the environment as a whole, to provide an integrated presentation of flows entering the ocean versus other environmental sinks. The link between flows to the environment and condition is difficult to establish due to time lags and complex dispersion factors. However, tracking the quantities generated and where they are generated will help understand the source of residuals existing in the ocean.

...

Note: The spatial detail in this table is more feasible and essential for indicators related to zoning and institutions. Indicators of social circumstances and risk and resilience are still under discussion.

...

• Table 16 is designed to flexibly accommodate a wide range of qualitative and quantitative information sourced from other indicator and classification frameworks, including but not limited to:

  • The 2013 Framework for Development of Environment Statistics, in particular Component 6 focusing on environmental protection, management and engagement.

  • The IUCN Protected Area Categories, which classify protected areas according to their management objectives, and are used by many national governments as the global standard for defining and recording protected areas. The IUCN has also published supplemental guidelines for applying the Protected Area Categories to Marine Protected Areas.

  • Spatially disaggregated information aligned with the 38 indicators identified under the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, which are used as a basis for measuring progress towards the global targets recognized in the Sendai Framework.

  • Spatially disaggregated information aligned with the dimensions of poverty recognised in the UNDO Multidimensional Poverty Index.

  • Spatially disaggregated information aligned with the WHO Global Reference List of 100 Core Health Indicators.

  • The FAO Resilience Index Measurement and Analysis framework which quantitatively examines the ability of households to cope with shocks and stressors.

• Table 17, recording environmental economic activity per sector features a combined presentation of specific components of the SEEA that focus on protection and management expenditure, environmental goods and services, taxes and subsidies, etc. — for more information refer to SEEA–CF Section 4.3. Depending on availability of spatial detail, these could be compiled by spatial unit and incorporated into Table 16. This would show, for example, total environmental protection expenditures in a given spatial unit.

...

• Opportunities for disaggregation to better understand the links between the ocean and social concerns require the disaggregation of beneficiaries of ocean-related services and populations at risk of ocean-related disasters. The System of National Accounts suggests a Social Accounting Matrix approach to link sub-populations (e.g., women, low-income, self-employed…) of concern with economic sectors. Ocean accounting can extend sub-populations of concern to include coastal communities, small-scale fishers seaweed farmers, mangrove harvesters, and local villagers.

• One aspect of being a beneficiary is employment in the industry. For example, the fisheries industry could (a) be aggregated by large and small-scale operations and (b) within those track employment of men/women, low-income/high-income, island/coastal/inland communities. Small scale operations and subsistence activities are often excluded in economic surveys used to compile national accounts.

• The other aspect of being a beneficiary is benefitting from non-market ecosystem services such as coastal protection and flood protection. These services could as well be disaggregated by sub-populations of concern. This could be represented in the services use account and summarized in the combined presentation as the quantity of those services used by these sub-populations relative to the size of the sub-populations. For example, at-risk poor coastal communities could represent 20% of the population yet receive only 10% of the coastal protection of mangroves due to their less favourable living conditions.

• Links between ocean services and health could be made in terms of nutrition received from the ocean and recreational benefits. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2005) called for “social analysis” of the distribution of the benefits of ecosystem services (Daw, 2011). Such social analysis also includes broader inclusion of socio-ecological considerations such as co-production, power relations, institutions and governance, uncertainty and value pluralism (Solé & Ariza, 2019). In their literature review, Solé & Ariza (2019) conclude that “coastal ES studies fall short of considering the social components and social-ecological interactions of coastal systems”. Therefore, establishing a comprehensive list of beneficiaries of ocean services, the services from which they benefit, and the extent of those benefits will continue to be a challenge. While there is literature on disaggregated beneficiaries of ocean services (Lange & Jiddawi, 2009, Hicks & Cinner, 2014, Hossein et al. 2017, ESPA n.d.), this will require targeted literature search and codification. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2020) has initiated such a project and expects results by the end of 2020.

...