Explore the vast range of titles available.

Global statistical standards are being developed Reversing the ongoing degradation of the planet's ecosystems requires timely and detailed monitoring of ecosystem change and uses. Yet, the System of National Accounts (SNA), first developed in response to the economic crisis of the 1930s and used by statistical offices worldwide to record economic activity (for example, production, consumption, and asset accumulation), does not make explicit either inputs from the environment to the economy or the cost of environmental degradation ( 1 , 2 ). Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (EEA), part of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA), has been developed to monitor and report on ecosystem change and use, using the same accounting approach, concepts, and classifications as the SNA ( 3 ). The EEA is part of the statistical community's response to move SNA measurement “beyond gross domestic product (GDP).” With the first generation of ecosystem accounts now published in 24 countries, and with a push to finalize a United Nations (UN) statistical standard for ecosystem accounting by 2021, we highlight key advances, challenges, and opportunities.

There has long been interest in integrating the value of environmental stocks and flows into standard measures of economic activity and wealth, in particular through the development of adjusted measures of GDP and extended measures of national wealth. This paper examines how the valuation of ecosystem services and ecosystem assets can be undertaken in an integrated national accounting setting. We clarify the relevant valuation principles, most significantly the need to apply the concept of exchange values, and explain why the integration of ecosystem services necessitates an extension of the standard production boundary used in economic measurement. The main implications of an accounting approach are discussed including the need to distinguish benefits from services, the need for valuation methods that exclude consumer surplus, and the importance of aligning measures of income and degradation. Remaining challenges include the treatment of low or negative rents, accounting for ecosystem disservices, and the derivation of values for ecosystem assets. Meeting these challenges and advancing work in this area should be the joint focus of economists, ecologists and accountants.

In natural capital accounting, ecosystems are assets that provide ecosystem services to people. Assets can be measured using both physical and monetary units. In the international System of Environmental-Economic Accounting, ecosystem assets are generally valued on the basis of the net present value of the expected flow of ecosystem services. In this paper we argue that several additional conceptualisations of ecosystem assets are needed to understand ecosystems as assets, in support of ecosystem assessments, ecosystem accounting and ecosystem management. In particular, we define ecosystems' capacity and capability to supply ecosystem services, as well as the potential supply of ecosystem services. Capacity relates to sustainable use levels of multiple ecosystem services, capability involves prioritising the use of one ecosystem service over a basket of services, and potential supply considers the ability of ecosystems to generate services regardless of demand for these services. We ground our definitions in the ecosystem services and accounting literature, and illustrate and compare the concepts of flow, capacity, capability, and potential supply with a range of conceptual and real-world examples drawn from case studies in Europe and North America. Our paper contributes to the development of measurement frameworks for natural capital to support environmental accounting and other assessment frameworks.

Adjusting national income for depletion is important in order to send correct signals to policy makers. This article reviews a number of depletion measures that have been recently brought forward in the context of environmental accounting (‘practice’) and green accounting (‘theory’): depletion as change in total wealth; depletion as ‘using up’ of the resource; depletion as net savings; or, depletion as net investment. The differences in assumptions between these measures are clarified by contrasting their approaches with the classic theory of a firm engaged in extraction. All measures are evaluated using a time series of data on Dutch natural gas reserves. Our main findings are that correcting for the cost of depletion would lead to significant adjustments of both level and growth rates of Dutch net national income, with a strong dependency on the chosen measure.We counter criticism that accounting in practice would necessarily underestimate depletion. The choice for a depletion measure should be determined by the context of use: measurement of social welfare or sustainable income. The physical measure put forward in the SEEA Central Framework can be justified by its consistency with the income concept that underlies the SNA.

Purpose Footprint estimates from various MRIO (multi-regional input-output) databases sometimes vary significantly. As a result, conclusions about the absolute levels or trends of a footprint may be inconsistent. The sources of these variations are attributable to three phases in the footprint calculations: differences in data preparation, MRIO database construction and footprint calculation. Design/methodology/approach This paper provides a literature overview and a breakdown of the computation of footprints based on MRIO database. Based on these insights strategies that lead to lower variation in footprint estimates are formulated. Findings Convergence of footprint estimates require enhanced cooperation amongst academics, amongst statisticians and between academics and statisticians. Originality/value Reducing the variation in footprint estimates is a major challenge. This paper aims to contribute to this convergence in three ways. First, this paper provides the first overview of footprint work at statistical offices, government agencies and international organisations. These are the front-runners that may play a role in cooperating with academics (and other statistical offices) to resolve some of the issues. Second, a detailed analysis of the sources of the variation in estimates is provided. These problems are illustrated using examples from the various MRIO databases and the data of Statistics Netherlands. Thirdly, strategies are discussed that might help to reduce variation between footprint estimates.

This book is about development and measuring development progress. While precise definitions may vary, development is, at heart, a process of building wealth, the produced, natural, human, and institutional capital which is the source of income and wellbeing. A key finding is that it is intangible wealth, human and institutional capital, which dominates the wealth of all countries, rising as a share of the total as countries climb the development ladder. The book is divided into two parts. The first part provides the big picture of changes in wealth by income group and geographic region, with a focus on natural capital because it is especially important for low-income developing countries. The second part presents case studies that illustrate particular aspects of wealth accounting, including accounting for climate change, the role of intangible capital in growth and development, measuring human capital, and the use of wealth accounting to improve transparency and governance in resource-rich economies. The final chapter reports on the implementation of wealth accounting by countries. The appendixes provide the full wealth accounts for individual countries and for aggregations by income group and geographic region.