## seeaeaea

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [seeaeaea](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/manuals-and-guides/2025/english/seeaeaea.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/publications/manuals-and-guides/2025/english/seeaeaea.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/publications/manuals-and-guides/2025/english/seeaeaea.pdf.json)

---

### Recognition, purpose, and international adoption
- SEEA EA purpose:
  - Spatially based, integrated statistical framework for organizing biophysical information on ecosystems, measuring ecosystem services, tracking changes in ecosystem extent and condition, valuing ecosystem services and assets, and linking to measures of economic and human activity.
  - Supports mainstreaming data on ecosystems into economic and national development planning.
- Key milestones and adoption:
  - SEEA EA adopted by the United Nations Statistical Commission in March 2021 as an international statistical standard.
  - At adoption time (March 2021) more than 34 countries were compiling ecosystem accounts on an experimental basis.
  - Revision process timeline highlights:
    - First SEEA handbook: 1993.
    - Revised handbook: 2003.
    - SEEA Central Framework adopted: 2012.
    - SEEA EEA welcomed: 2013.
    - SEEA EEA revision under UNCEEA: 2018–2021.
  - Revision process: five steps from issue identification to presentation to the Statistical Commission (final draft presented at fifty-second session, March 2021).
- Governance and contributors:
  - Led and managed by UNCEEA and its Technical Committee on SEEA EA; Technical Committee held 30 meetings between June 2018 and publication (white-cover text) in July 2021.
  - Revision co-financed by Australia, the United Kingdom and the European Union.
  - Five working groups supported the revision.

### Core conceptual framework and accounting approach
- Measurement perspectives and units:
  - Five integrated measurement perspectives: Spatial; Ecological; Societal benefit; Asset value; Institutional ownership.
  - Primary statistical unit: ecosystem asset (contiguous space of a specific ecosystem type) within an ecosystem accounting area (EAA).
  - Five core ecosystem accounts:
    - (a) ecosystem extent account (physical terms);
    - (b) ecosystem condition account (physical terms);
    - (c) ecosystem services flow account — physical terms;
    - (d) ecosystem services flow account — monetary terms;
    - (e) monetary ecosystem asset account.
- Accounting principles:
  - Uses 2008 SNA national accounting principles where applicable; applies exchange value concept for monetary entries.
  - Recording is gross for supply and use pairs; identical units must be used for supply and use of a single ecosystem service.
  - Standard accounting period: one year recommended; regular reporting ideal (e.g. annually; general ambition regular reporting every three to five years where data limits exist).
- Spatial design:
  - Ecosystem assets treated as three-dimensional conceptually but generally represented by two-dimensional footprints for accounting.
  - EAAs are two-dimensional accounting boundaries (national jurisdictions typically to the EEZ boundary).
  - Basic Spatial Units (BSUs) used operationally (grid cells or polygons) to attribute multi-layer data.

### Extent and condition accounting (Section B / Chapter 3–5)
- Extent accounts:
  - Record Opening extent; Additions to extent (managed/unmanaged); Reductions to extent (managed/unmanaged); Closing extent.
  - Ecosystem conversions recorded in extent accounts; conversions imply change in ecosystem type.
  - Linear features and subsurface ecosystems: linear features recorded by length when appropriate; subterranean ecosystems can be compiled as complementary extent accounts.
- Condition accounts:
  - Three-stage approach:
    - Stage 1: condition variable accounts (observed variables by ECT class).
    - Stage 2: condition indicator accounts (variables rescaled to [0, 1] using reference levels).
    - Stage 3: optional composite indices (aggregation of indicators using functions/weights).
  - SEEA Ecosystem Condition Typology (ECT): six classes organized into Group A (Abiotic: A1 Physical state; A2 Chemical state), Group B (Biotic: B1 Compositional; B2 Structural; B3 Functional), Group C (Landscape/seascape: C1).
  - Reference levels and reference condition:
    - Reference condition preferred: natural or minimally disturbed state; methods to establish reference condition include Reference sites; Modelled reference conditions; Statistical approaches based on ambient distributions; Historical/palaeo data; Contemporary baselines; Prescribed levels; Expert opinion; Combination approaches.
  - Aggregation options and cautions:
    - Aggregation functions: arithmetic mean, geometric mean, harmonic mean, min/max, quantiles; weighting choices critical and require ecological justification.
    - Do not aggregate across ecosystem types with different reference conditions without care.

### Ecosystem services accounting (Section C / Chapters 6–7)
- Definitions and boundaries:
  - Ecosystem services = contributions of ecosystems to benefits used in economic and other human activity (use includes direct consumption, passive enjoyment, indirect use).
  - Distinction: final ecosystem services (used by economic units) vs intermediate services (used by other ecosystem assets).
  - SEEA EA separates ecosystem services, abiotic flows, and spatial functions.
- Reference list and measurement scope:
  - SEEA EA reference list covers provisioning; regulating and maintenance; cultural services; includes 33 selected ecosystem services (reference list used for SUTs).
  - Measurement baselines:
    - For many regulating services baseline = zero (no service) or bare land (for services where comparison to bare land is needed, e.g., water flow regulation, soil erosion control).
- Physical supply and use tables (PSUTs):
  - PSUT structure mirrors SUT logic with supply columns by ecosystem type and use columns by economic unit (industries, government, households, exports).
  - Identity: total supply = total use for each service per accounting period.
  - Spatial allocation concepts: Service Providing Area (SPA) and Service Benefiting Area (SBA); linkage typology: in situ, omnidirectional, directional services.
- Examples and practical treatments:
  - Biomass provisioning:
    - Natural production contexts: gross harvested biomass considered ecosystem contribution.
    - Cultivated contexts: ecosystem contribution may be proxied by gross harvest when ecosystem contribution is difficult to isolate; alternative approach measures component services (pollination, water regulation) as intermediate/final services.
  - Water supply:
    - If abstraction requires ecosystem contribution (purification, regulation), record as ecosystem services; otherwise record as abiotic flow.
  - Global climate regulation:
    - Focus on biocarbon: stocks and changes across biomass, debris, soil, sediments; include peat carbon to two metres depth where relevant; sequestration measured via net ecosystem carbon balance.

### Monetary valuation and integrated accounts (Section D / Chapters 8–11)
- Valuation concept:
  - SEEA EA applies exchange values aligned with SNA — monetary ecosystem services and asset values reflect prices at which services/assets are or would be exchanged.
  - Accounting values exclude consumer surplus and most non-use values; complementary welfare valuations discussed in Chapter 12.
- Monetary ecosystem services flow account:
  - Monetary SUT mirrors physical SUT; monetary entries derived by applying prices to physical flows or direct market observations where available.
  - GEP (Gross Ecosystem Product) defined: “the sum of all final ecosystem services at their exchange value supplied by all ecosystem types located within an EAA over an accounting period less the net imports of intermediate services.”
- Monetary ecosystem asset account:
  - Valuation approach: NPV of expected future returns from ecosystem services aggregated across services for each ecosystem asset.
  - Account entries: Opening value; Ecosystem enhancement; Ecosystem degradation; Ecosystem conversions (Additions/Reductions); Other changes in volume (including catastrophic losses, reappraisals); Revaluations (holding gains/losses).
  - Key factors for NPV estimation: scope of returns (services included); valuation method per service; future physical flows; asset life; expected institutional arrangements; discounting.
  - Discounting guidance:
    - Example discount rates used in illustrations: 2 percent; 5 percent mentioned as example in bridge tables and NPV examples.
    - Use of social vs private discount rates discussed; compilers encouraged to document and run sensitivity analyses.
- Decomposition and attribution:
  - Changes in asset values decomposed into price effect (revaluation) and volume/quantity effects (linked to condition, demand, area changes).
  - Examples from Appendix A10.1: EAA change from $29 208 to $28 816 represents change of $-392 decomposed into price and volume effects.

### Integration with SNA and extended accounts (Chapter 11)
- Extended SUTs:
  - Combine monetary ecosystem services flow account with standard SNA SUT to show ecosystem contributions to industry output and value added.
  - Requires careful boundary treatment to avoid double counting and to partition ecosystem service contributions to SNA benefits.
- Extended balance sheets:
  - Include monetary ecosystem asset values alongside produced and financial assets to inform wealth accounting.
  - Distinguish ecosystem assets from other environmental assets (cultivated biological resources, land, mineral and energy resources, water resources).
- Assigning ownership and the ecosystem trustee:
  - Two allocation approaches for ownership:
    - Assign ownership to economic units receiving SNA benefits (costs-borne approach).
    - Introduce an “ecosystem trustee” subsector of general government to hold values related to services contributing to non-SNA (public) benefits.
  - Allocation of degradation/enhancement to institutional sectors follows ownership assignment; alternative polluter-pays presentations discussed (Chapter 12).

### Applications, thematic accounts and indicators (Sections E / Chapters 12–14)
- Complementary valuations and bridge to welfare values (Chapter 12):
  - SEEA EA exchange-value accounts can be complemented by welfare-based valuations (consumer surplus, non-use values) in bridge tables.
  - Alternative measures: restoration-cost approaches; polluter-pays vs cost-borne presentations; defensive expenditures; inclusive wealth and greened-economy modelling.
  - Policy-relevant presentation options for degradation allocation (e.g., to polluter) are discussed with accounting entries and illustrative tables.
- Thematic accounts and priorities (Chapter 13):
  - Biodiversity accounting: species accounts (status, stocks, distribution), links to IUCN GET and EBVs/EESVs; species accounts can inform Red List type indicators and link to ecosystem condition data.
  - Climate change and carbon accounting:
    - Carbon stock accounts disaggregate biocarbon, geocarbon, ocean carbon, atmospheric carbon, and carbon accumulated in the economy; stocks and flows recorded in tons of carbon.
    - Carbon retention vs sequestration distinction; carbon stock measurement scope guidance (peat to two metres, exclude fossil fuel deposits from ecosystem services).
  - Ocean accounts: integrate extent, condition, services, ocean economy, governance and pressures for marine and coastal realms; support transboundary and ABNJ analysis.
  - Urban accounts: urban EEAs for planning, local climate regulation, air filtration, recreation and amenity — two spatial approaches: landscape-class approach and individual-asset approach.
- Indicators and combined presentations (Chapter 14):
  - SEEA EA supports derivation of indicators across DPSIR categories: Driving forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses.
  - Examples of indicators:
    - Extent indicators (hectares, % of EAA), condition indices (index [0–1]), physical service flows (tons, m3, visits), monetary aggregates (GEP; monetary ecosystem asset value; cost of degradation).
  - SEEA EA supports reporting for global frameworks (SDGs, Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, LDN) and provides baseline data for headline and component indicators.
  - EBVs and EESVs, GOOS EOVs/ECVs emphasized for interoperability and indicator development.

### Implementation experience, illustrative example and numerical illustrations
- SEEALand stylized example (Annex I) demonstrates integrated accounts:
  - Total EAA area: 250 hectares.
  - Example extent changes: Forest opening 40 ha → closing 38 ha; Cropland opening 60 ha → closing 62 ha (managed conversion 2 ha from forest to cropland).
  - Condition index examples: Forest opening 0.67 → closing 0.61 (net change -0.06).
  - Physical service flows and prices used in example produce a GEP = 83,125 currency units for the accounting period.
  - Monetary ecosystem asset NPV example illustrates asset-level valuation assumptions: asset life examples (moving asset life 5 years in appendix A10.1; a 100-year asset life in Annex I stylized NPV); discount rate example 2 percent used in Appendix A10.1; decomposition of change in EAA value $29 208 → $28 816 (change $-392).
- Appendix A10.1 worked example preserves exact figures:
  - Opening total EAA value V0 = $29 208.
  - Closing total EAA value V1 = $28 816.
  - Net change = $-392 (decomposed into price effect +1 027 and volume effect -1 419).
- Valuation method preferences (Chapter 9, recommended order):
  - (a) Methods where the price for the ecosystem service is directly observable;
  - (b) Methods where the price is obtained from markets for similar goods/services;
  - (c) Methods where prices are embodied in market transactions (residual/resource-rent methods);
  - (d) Methods based on revealed expenditures for related goods/services (averting behaviour, travel cost);
  - (e) Methods based on expected expenditures or hypothetical/constructed markets (replacement cost, avoided damage, simulated exchange values).
- Value transfer considerations:
  - Unit value vs function transfer, meta-analysis approaches, and need to account for spatial variation (distance decay, income differences, institutional context).

### Data, methods, uncertainty and research agenda (Annex II and throughout)
- Data and quality:
  - SEEA EA relies on multiple data types: remote sensing, ecological monitoring, administrative data, surveys, modelling.
  - Data quality dimensions include relevance, timeliness, accuracy, coherence and interpretability; compilers encouraged to document methods and assumptions.
- Major sources of uncertainty:
  - (a) physical measurement of services and assets;
  - (b) valuation of services and assets;
  - (c) ecosystem dynamics and future flows;
  - (d) future prices and values.
- Research and development priorities (Annex II highlights):
  - Selection of ecosystem condition variables, reference levels and methods for establishing reference conditions.
  - Ecosystem capacity measurement and operationalization.
  - Value transfer methods consistent with exchange-value accounting.
  - Methods for deriving expected future flows and prices for NPV calculations (asset valuation).
  - Data standards, spatial data infrastructures, minimum account-ready data sets, interoperability and sharing protocols.
  - Thematic guidance for biodiversity, climate change, oceans and urban accounts.
  - Development of indicators, combined presentations and capacity-building for implementation.

*Source: Preface, chapters 1–14, Annex I and II, and appendices of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (seeaeaea PDF).*

### Preface

### Preface

### Recognition of nature and need for integrated measurement
- There is growing recognition that our economies are embedded within and dependent on nature and that nature itself, as our natural capital, should be recognized as an asset to the economy.
- Policymakers are increasingly seeking robust measurement that goes beyond gross domestic product (GDP) and integrates environmental and economic data.
- The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) is an international statistical standard that supports integrated decision-making by measuring the interdependence of the economy and the environment.

### Adoption and significance of SEEA EA
- The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA) was adopted by the United Nations Statistical Commission in March 2021 as an international statistical standard for the ecosystem accounting framework and physical ecosystem accounts.
- SEEA EA presents internationally recognized statistical principles and recommendations for the valuation of ecosystem services and assets.
- Key implications:
  - Environmental degradation will be reflected in balance sheets and can be recognized as a cost in the measurement of economic growth.
  - The framework will inform national policies related to the environment-economy nexus.
  - SEEA EA provides crucial information to inform international initiatives and global reporting frameworks, including:
    - the Sustainable Development Goals,
    - the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework,
    - the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration,
    - Beyond GDP,
    - the measurement of land degradation under the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification,
    - the measurement of GHG emissions and removals by land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and associated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC).
- The monitoring framework for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework draws directly on SEEA EA for several indicators, including the headline indicators under goals A and B.

### The road to SEEA EA — historical development and methodological advances
- Timeline and milestones:
  - The first SEEA handbook was published as an interim report in 1993, following the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
  - A revised handbook with greatly expanded scope was published in 2003.
  - In 2012, the conceptual content of that handbook was standardized, and the Statistical Commission adopted the SEEA Central Framework as an international statistical standard.
  - The initial response to demand for ecosystem measurement was the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012 – Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA), welcomed by the Statistical Commission in 2013.
  - Between 2018 and 2021, SEEA EEA underwent a revision process under the auspices of the United Nations Committee of Experts on Environmental-Economic Accounting (UNCEEA), as mandated by the Statistical Commission at its forty-eighth session in 2017.
- Role and scope of SEEA Central Framework and SEEA EEA:
  - The SEEA Central Framework provides an agreed statistical framework for measuring stocks and flows of environmental assets (such as energy and water), environmentally related transactions and activities, and monetary stocks of environmental assets.
  - The SEEA Central Framework does not include ecosystem services nor a range of valuation issues (such as the cost of degradation).
  - SEEA EEA viewed the environment through the lens of ecosystems, treating biophysical components as functional units and complementing the SEEA Central Framework.
  - Technical Recommendations supported SEEA EEA as an intermediate step toward a statistical standard.
- Enabling technical advancements:
  - Technological advancement in the generation of Earth observation data, modelling of ecosystem services, increasing computational power, and the move towards open data were important enabling factors for ecosystem accounting.
- Inclusive revision process:
  - The revision targeted the global statistical community, geospatial, scientific and environmental economics communities, international organizations, academia, and non-governmental organizations.
  - The revision was closely informed by country experimentation and testing of SEEA EEA through national and international projects.

### Outstanding methodological issues and research agenda
- The Statistical Commission recognized the need to resolve outstanding methodological concerns related to chapters 8 to 11 on valuation.
- The SEEA EA research agenda identifies topics concerning conceptual issues and topics concerning methods and implementation issues.
- Advancement of those topics will be undertaken under the auspices of the UNCEEA and with the involvement of experts in relevant substantive fields to ensure ongoing relevance and application of best practice.

### Linking SEEA EA to the System of National Accounts (SNA)
- SEEA EA adopts an accounting approach to organizing information on ecosystems to support coherence with economic information organized in accordance with the System of National Accounts (SNA).
- This approach supports consistent evaluation of:
  - the impacts and dependencies of economic activities on ecosystems,
  - the contribution of ecosystems to the economy and well-being,
  - and the actions taken by the (text ends).

*Source: Preface (seeaeaea - Preface).*

### Preface

### Preface

### Purpose and role of SEEA EA
- SEEA EA provides a mechanism for mainstreaming data on ecosystems and ecosystem services into economic and national development planning.
- Uses an accounting approach that necessitates the harmonization of environmental data from multiple sources to create integrated data supporting coherent and consistent indicators relevant to the environment-economy nexus.
- Enables a planning approach that reflects economic, environmental and social dimensions of sustainable development in an integrated way.
- Intended as a powerful tool for central and line ministries concerned with sustainable national development and delivering better outcomes for the environment and society.

### Implementation status and encouragement
- At the time of the adoption of SEEA EA in March 2021, more than 34 countries were compiling ecosystem accounts on an experimental basis.
- With adoption as an international statistical standard, many more countries have begun implementation and more are expected to commence.
- A significant number of countries will require assistance and additional resources for statistical data collection.
- In March 2021, the Statistical Commission encouraged the implementation of SEEA EA in countries and requested UNCEEA to develop an implementation strategy that takes into account country priorities and data availability.
- As part of the 2021 United Nations Common Agenda, the United Nations Secretary-General urged all Member States to begin implementing SEEA EA.

### Revision process and governance
- Revision of SEEA EEA was launched officially in March 2018, at the forty-ninth session of the Statistical Commission.
- The revision process centered on four priority research issues: spatial areas, ecosystem condition, ecosystem services, and valuation and accounting treatments.
- The revision comprised five steps:
  - (a) Identifying and securing agreement on the issues to be considered in the drafting of SEEA EA;
  - (b) Research on those issues and presentation of proposals for addressing them;
  - (c) Consideration of the issues and proposals by experts and agreement on a provisional draft text;
  - (d) Consultation with countries and experts on specific issues as well as on the content of the completed chapters, incorporation of comments elicited through the consultation process, and preparation of a final draft of the text of SEEA EA;
  - (e) Presentation of the draft to the United Nations Statistical Commission at its fifty-second session, held in March 2021.
- The revision was co-financed by Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Department of the Environment and Energy), the United Kingdom (Office for National Statistics; Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), and the European Union (Eurostat).
- The revision process was led and managed by the United Nations Committee of Experts on Environmental-Economic Accounting (UNCEEA) and its Technical Committee on SEEA EA.

### Institutional bodies and editorial oversight
- UNCEEA and its Bureau oversee and manage the revision of SEEA; the Committee was endorsed at its thirty-sixth session in March 2005.
- The Technical Committee on SEEA EA served as the editorial board for the revision and held 30 meetings between June 2018 and the publication of the white-cover text of SEEA EA in July 2021.
- SEEA EA Editor: Carl Obst, under guidance of the Technical Committee, synthesized discussion papers and drafted chapters.

### Contributions and participants
- The revision involved extensive contributions from:
  - Experts from international, regional and non-governmental organizations.
  - Project staff and agencies of many countries responsible for compiling official statistics.
  - City groups, other expert groups, and individual experts in economics, ecosystem science and related fields.
- Members of the Committee of Experts and contributors representing national institutions and international organizations are listed in the source material (names and institutional affiliations provided in the original text).
- Members of the Bureau of the Committee of Experts and staff of the Statistics Division (Environmental-Economic Accounts Section, Environmental Statistics and Geospatial Information Branch) provided secretariat services; supervisory oversight noted as Alessandra Alfieri.

### SEEA EEA revision working groups (structure and leads)
- Five working groups supported the revision; area leads and many contributing experts are identified in the source:
  - Working group 1 on spatial units — Area lead: Sjoerd Schenau (Statistics Netherlands).
  - Working group 2 on ecosystem condition — Area lead: Joachim Maes (European Commission, Joint Research Centre).
  - Working group 3 on ecosystem services — Area lead: Lars Hein (Wageningen University, Kingdom of the Netherlands).
  - Working group 4 on individual ecosystem services — Area lead: Rocky Harris (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, United Kingdom).
  - Working group 5 on valuation and accounting treatments — Area lead: Juha Siikamaki (International Union for Conservation of Nature).
- Additional subgroups and thematic groups:
  - Subgroup on Accounting for Biodiversity in SEEA EA — Co-chairs: Rosimeiry Portela and Trond Larsen (Conservation International).
  - Working Group on SEEA EA Indicators — Chair: P. Bhanumati (Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, India).

### Global consultations, projects and partnerships
- Two formal global consultations were organized during the revision:
  - First consultation on individual chapters: March–August 2020.
  - Second consultation on the complete draft: October–November 2020.
- A broad set of countries participated in the global consultations (list provided in source text).
- Participating organizations included Capitals Coalition; Conservation International; Convention on Biological Diversity secretariat; GEO BON; International Monetary Fund; IUCN; OECD; UNDP; UNEP; World Bank; World Tourism Organization; and many others (complete list in source).
- The NCAVES (Natural Capital Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services) project contributed experts from participating countries who provided support through comments and testing of approaches.

### Meetings, workshops and outreach
- Numerous meetings and workshops were convened to support engagement and technical discussion. Examples with dates:
  - Expert Workshop on Valuation for Ecosystem Accounting, Bonn, 24–26 April 2018
  - Forum of Experts on SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting, Glen Cove, New York, 18–20 June 2018
  - Twenty-fourth meeting of the London Group on Environmental Accounting, Dublin, 1–4 October 2018
  - Expert meeting on spatial areas and ecosystem condition, Paris, 28 and 29 November 2018
  - Expert meeting on advancing the measurement of ecosystem services for ecosystem accounting, New York, 22–24 January 2019
  - Thirteenth meeting of the Advisory Expert Group on National Accounts, Washington, D.C., 1–3 October 2019
  - Twenty-fifth meeting of the London Group on Environmental Accounting, Melbourne, Australia, 7–10 October 2019
  - Multiple virtual meetings in 2020 and early 2021, including sessions on valuation, ecosystem services, thematic accounts and indicators, and Extraordinary Meeting of the United Nations Committee of Experts on Environmental-Economic Accounting (virtual), 16–18 November 2020.
  - High-level webinar on finalization of the revision for Latin American and Caribbean countries, co-organized by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean and the Statistics Division, 4 February 2021.

### Acronyms and abbreviations (selected)
- AB abiotic flow
- BIOFIN Biodiversity Finance Initiative
- BOD biological oxygen demand
- BSU basic spatial unit
- CICES Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services
- DIC dissolved inorganic carbon
- DPSIR driving forces-pressure-state-impact-response
- EAA ecosystem accounting area
- EBV essential biodiversity variable
- ECT ecosystem condition typology
- ECV essential climate variable
- EE-IOT environmentally extended input-output table
- EESV essential ecosystem services variable
- EEZ exclusive economic zone
- EFG ecosystem functional group (IUCN GET)
- EGSS environmental goods and services sector
- EOV essential ocean variable
- ET ecosystem type
- FDES Framework for the Development of Environment Statistics
- FTE full-time equivalent
- GDP gross domestic product
- GEO BON Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network
- GEP gross ecosystem product
- GHG greenhouse gas
- GIS geographic information system
- GOOS Global Ocean Observing System
- GVA gross value added
- IPBES Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
- IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
- IS intermediate ecosystem service
- ISIC International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities
- IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
- LDN land degradation neutrality
- LULUCF land use, land-use change and forestry
- MAES Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services
- NCAVES National Capital Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services
- NDP net domestic product
- NDVI normalized difference vegetation index
- NDWI normalized difference water index
- NESCS National Ecosystem Services Classification System (United States Environmental Protection Agency)
- NPV net present value
- NSO national statistical office
- PM particulate matter
- PSUT physical supply and use table
- SBA service benefiting area
- SEEA System of Environmental-Economic Accounting
- SEEA AFF System of Environmental-Economic Accounting for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
- SEEA EA System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting
- SEEA EEA System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012 – Experimental Ecosystem Accounting
- SNA System of National Accounts
- SPA service providing area
- SUT supply and use table
- TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (initiative)
- UNCEEA United Nations Committee of Experts on Environmental-Economic Accounting
- UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
- UNEP-WCMC United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre
- WTA willingness to accept (a payment)
- WTP willingness (of a consumer) to pay

*Source: Preface, SEEA EA (seeaeaea - Preface).*

### Preface ..................................................................       iii

### Preface

### Front matter
- Preface ..................................................................       iii
- Acknowledgements .......................................................      vii
- Abbreviations and acronyms................................................      xix

### Section A: Introduction and overview (Section overview  ..........................................................         3)
- 1.      Introduction  ..........................................................         5
  - 1.1      Context for SEEA EA ..........................................         5
  - 1.2     What is SEEA EA?.............................................         5
    - 1.2.1     Introduction ...........................................        5
    - 1.2.2     Coverage and interpretation of SEEA EA ..................         6
    - 1.2.3     Implementation of SEEA EA .............................         7
  - 1.3     Statistical context for ecosystem accounting ......................         7
    - 1.3.1     Historical background of SEEA...........................         7
    - 1.3.2     Development of SEEA EA................................         8
  - 1.4     Conceptual approach of SEEA EA  ..............................         9
  - 1.5     Connections to other measurement frameworks and initiatives .....       11
    - 1.5.1     Introduction ...........................................       11
    - 1.5.2     Connection to the SEEA Central Framework  ..............       12
    - 1.5.3     Connection to SNA .....................................       12
    - 1.5.4 Connections to other statistical methodology outputs and 
      guidance ..............................................       13
    - 1.5.5 Relationship to other global environmental measurement and 
      assessment initiatives  ...................................        14
  - 1.6     Measurement, implementation and application  ...................       15
    - 1.6.1     Introduction ...........................................       15
    - 1.6.2     Role of NSOs and other agencies..........................       16
    - 1.6.3     Approaches to the compilation of ecosystem accounts  ......       17
    - 1.6.4     Uses and applications of ecosystem accounting  .............       17
  - 1.7     Structure of SEEA EA  .........................................       19
- Appendix A1.1   From SEEA EEA to SEEA EA: main conceptual changes  .        21
- Appendix A1.2   Linking SEEA EA and the SEEA Central Framework ....       23

### Section 2: Principles of ecosystem accounting
- 2.      Principles of ecosystem accounting ......................................       29
  - 2.1     Introduction..................................................       29
  - 2.2     Overview of the ecosystem accounting framework.................       29
    - 2.2.1     An accounting approach.................................       29
    - 2.2.2     Measurement perspectives on ecosystems..................       29
    - 2.2.3     Logic of the ecosystem accounting framework..............        31
    - 2.2.4     Ecosystem accounting framework: ecological considerations          32
    - 2.2.5     Ecosystem accounting framework: economic considerations  .        34
  - 2.3     Set of ecosystem accounts ......................................       35
    - 2.3.1     Ecosystem accounts.....................................       35
    - 2.3.2     Related accounts and presentations .......................       38
  - 2.4     Framing of values in ecosystem accounting.......................       39
    - 2.4.1     Introduction ...........................................      39
    - 2.4.2     Summary of the multiple value perspectives on nature ......       40
    - 2.4.3 Linking the ecosystem accounts and multiple value 
      perspectives............................................       41
  - 2.5     General national accounting principles ..........................       42
    - 2.5.1     Introduction ...........................................      42
    - 2.5.2 Length of the accounting period  
      and frequency of accounts ...............................       42
    - 2.5.3     Time of recording ......................................       43
    - 2.5.4     Units of measurement  ...................................       43
    - 2.5.5     Gross and net recording .................................       44
    - 2.5.6     Scale of   application .....................................       45
    - 2.5.7     Data quality and scientific accreditation  ...................       45
    - 2.5.8     Uncertainty in measurement  .............................       46

### Section B: Accounting for ecosystem extent and condition (Section overview  .........................................................       51)
- 3.      Spatial units for ecosystem accounting  ...................................       53
  - 3.1      Introduction..................................................       53
  - 3.2     Types of spatial units ..........................................       53
    - 3.2.1     Ecosystem assets .......................................       53
    - 3.2.2     Applying the conceptual boundary for ecosystem assets .....       56
    - 3.2.3     EAAs .................................................      56
  - 3.3     Delineating ecosystem assets ...................................       59
    - 3.3.1     General principles ......................................       59
    - 3.3.2     Approaches to identifying specific features.................       60
  - 3.4     Classifying ecosystem assets  ....................................       62
    - 3.4.1     General principles ......................................       62
    - 3.4.2     SEEA ecosystem type reference classification...............       62
  - 3.5     Considerations with respect to delineation of spatial units  .........       65
    - 3.5.1     Delineation of ecosystem assets in practice.................       65
    - 3.5.2     Use of data on characteristics of land  .....................       67
    - 3.5.3     Org  anizing data on socioeconomic and other characteristics  .        68
- Appendix A3.1 Ecological concepts underpinning spatial units for 
  ecosystem accounting................................       71
- Appendix A3.2A International Union for Conservation of Nature Global 
  Ecosystem Typology....................................      79

- 4.      Accounting for ecosystem extent  ........................................       83
  - 4.1     Purpose of accounting for ecosystem extent ......................       83
  - 4.2     Ecosystem extent accounts .....................................       84
    - 4.2.1     Scope of extent accounts.................................       84
    - 4.2.2     Structure of extent accounts and accounting entries.........       84
    - 4.2.3     Recording ecosystem conversions  ........................       87
  - 4.3     Complementary presentations of ecosystem extent data ............       89
    - 4.3.1     Mapping ecosystem extent  ...............................       89
    - 4.3.2     Ecosystem type change matrix ...........................       89
    - 4.3.3     Extent accounts for linear features and subsurface ecosystems       92
    - 4.3.4     Linking extent accounts and economic data................       92

- 5.      Accounting for ecosystem condition  .....................................       95
  - 5.1      Introduction..................................................       95
    - 5.1.1     Measurement focus in accounting for ecosystem condition...       95
    - 5.1.2 Ecological concepts underpinning measurement of ecosystem 
      condition  ..............................................       96
    - 5.1.3     General approach to compiling ecosystem condition accounts       97
  - 5.2 Defining and selecting ecosystem condition characteristics and 
    variables  .....................................................       98
    - 5.2.1     Introduction ...........................................      98
    - 5.2.2     Ecosystem condition characteristics.......................       99
    - 5.2.3     Ecosystem condition typology............................       99
    - 5.2.4     Ecosystem condition variables and their selection...........     102
    - 5.2.5     Ecosystem condition variable account  .....................     103
  - 5.3     Ecosystem condition indicators .................................     105
    - 5.3.1     Deriving ecosystem condition indicators from variables .....     105
    - 5.3.2     Reference levels.........................................     106
    - 5.3.3     Reference condition.....................................     107
    - 5.3.4     Ecosystem condition indicator account  ....................     108
  - 5.4     Aggregate measures of ecosystem condition ......................     109
    - 5.4.1     Ecosystem condition indices .............................     109
    - 5.4.2     Potential aggregation functions and weights ...............      111
    - 5.4.3     Presentation of ecosystem condition indices................     113
  - 5.5     Considerations in the measurement of ecosystem condition ........      114
    - 5.5.1     Introduction ...........................................     114
    - 5.5.2     Variables for selected ecosystem types  .....................      114
    - 5.5.3     Use of data on environmental pressures ...................      118
    - 5.5.4     Role of biodiversity in ecosystem condition accounts  ........     119
    - 5.5.5     Accounting for ecosystem conversions ....................     120
    - 5.5.6 Relationships among ecosystem condition, ecosystem capacity 
      and ecosystem degradation ..............................     121
  - 5.6     Applications of ecosystem condition accounts ....................     122
- Appendix A5.1 Selection criteria for ecosystem characteristics and their 
  metrics (variables and indicators)  .....................     125
- Appendix A5.2 Options for establishing reference conditions for natural 
  and anthropogenic ecosystems  ........................     127

### Section C: Accounting for ecosystem services (Section overview  .........................................................     133)
- 6.      Ecosystem services concepts for accounting...............................     135
  - 6.1     Purpose of accounting for ecosystem services  ....................     135
  - 6.2     Concepts and principles in accounting for ecosystem services.......     136
    - 6.2.1     Ecosystem services......................................     136
    - 6.2.2     Benefits ...............................................     137
    - 6.2.3     Final and intermediate services...........................     139
    - 6.2.4     Users and beneficiaries  ..................................     140
    - 6.2.5     Abiotic flows...........................................     140
    - 6.2.6     Identifying flows of ecosystem services  ....................     142
  - 6.3     Reference list of selected ecosystem services ......................     144
    - 6.3.1 Principles underpinning the reference list of selected 
      ecosystem services  ......................................     144
    - 6.3.2 Presentation of the reference list of selected ecosystem 
      services................................................     145
    - 6.3.3     Links between biodiversity and ecosystem services..........     149
    - 6.3.4     Treatment of non-use values .............................     151
    - 6.3.5     Treatment of ecosystem disservices .......................     152
  - 6.4 Treatment of specific ecosystem services and other environmental 
    flows ........................................................     153
    - 6.4.1     Treatment of biomass provisioning services  ................     153
    - 6.4.2     Treatment of water supply ...............................     157
    - 6.4.3     Measurement of global climate regulation services  ..........     158
    - 6.4.4     Identification of cultural services .........................     160
    - 6.4.5     Treatment of abiotic and other environmental flows ........     161
  - 6.5     Ecosystem capacity  ............................................     164
    - 6.5.1     Introduction ...........................................     164
    - 6.5.2     Defining ecosystem capacity for accounting purposes  .......     164
    - 6.5.3 Defining ecosystem capacity with respect to specific types of 
      ecosystem services  ......................................     167
- Appendix A6.1   Initial logic chains for selected ecosystem services  .......     169

- 7.      Accounting for ecosystem services in physical terms .......................     173
  - 7.1      Introduction..................................................     173
  - 7.2      Ecosystem services flow accounts in physical terms................      174
    - 7.2.1     Overall structure of ecosystem services flow accounts  .......      174
    - 7.2.2 Applying general supply and use principles in ecosystem 
      accounting.............................................     180
    - 7.2.3     Ecosystem services and benefits ..........................     182
    - 7.2.4     Recording intermediate services  ..........................     183
    - 7.2.5     Recording abiotic flows..................................     184
    - 7.2.6     Exports and imports of ecosystem services  ................     185
    - 7.2.7     Recording cultural services ..............................     187
    - 7.2.8 Linking the supply of ecosystem services to  
      economic units  .........................................     188
  - 7.3 Considerations in accounting for ecosystem services in physical 
    terms ........................................................     189
    - 7.3.1     Spatial allocation of ecosystem services supply and use ......     189
    - 7.3.2     Determining ecosystem services measurement baselines  ....     191

### Section D: Monetary valuation and integrated accounting for ecosystem services and assets (Section overview  ..........................................................     197)
- 8.      Principles of monetary valuation for ecosystem accounting .................     199
  - 8.1     Purposes and focus of monetary valuation for ecosystem accounting       199
    - 8.1.1     Purposes of monetary valuation in ecosystem accounting....     199
    - 8.1.2     Focus of monetary valuation for ecosystem accounting  ......     201
  - 8.2     Valuation concepts and principles for accounting..................     202
    - 8.2.1 Exchange values and market price concepts in national 
      accounting.............................................     202
    - 8.2.2     Monetary valuation of ecosystem services .................     203
    - 8.2.3     Monetary valuation of ecosystem assets ...................     205
    - 8.2.4     Volume and price measures  ..............................     207

- 9.      Accounting for ecosystem services in monetary terms  ......................     209
  - 9.1     Introduction..................................................     209
  - 9.2 Ecosystem services f low account  
    in monetary terms.............................................     210
  - 9.3     Techniques for valuing transactions in ecosystem services..........     216
    - 9.3.1     Introduction ...........................................     216
    - 9.3.2     Methods where prices are directly observable  ..............     218
    - 9.3.3 Methods where prices are obtained from markets for similar 
      goods and services  ......................................     219
    - 9.3.4 Methods where prices (and associated values) are embodied in 
      market transactions.....................................     219
    - 9.3.5 Methods where prices are based on revealed expenditures in 
      related goods and services ...............................     221
    - 9.3.6 Methods where prices are based on expected expenditures or 
      markets ...............................................    222
    - 9.3.7     Other valuation methods ................................     223
  - 9.4      Valuation methods for different ecosystem services................     225
    - 9.4.1     Introduction ...........................................    225
    - 9.4.2     Valuation of different types of services ....................     225
  - 9.5 Spatial variation in values and value transfer for the purpose of 
    ecosystem accounting  .........................................     226
    - 9.5.1     Introduction ...........................................    226
    - 9.5.2     Methods for incorporating spatial variation in prices........     228

- 10.   Accounting for ecosystem assets in monetary terms........................     233
  - 10.1   Introduction..................................................     233
  - 10.2   Monetary ecosystem asset account ..............................     234
    - 10.2.1   Structure of the monetary ecosystem asset account .........     234
    - 10.2.2   Ecosystem enhancement.................................     236
    - 10.2.3   Ecosystem degradation  ..................................     237
    - 10.2.4   Ecosystem conversions ..................................     238
    - 10.2.5   Other changes in the volume of ecosystem assets ...........     239
    - 10.2.6   Revaluations ...........................................    240
  - 10.3   Approaches to valuing ecosystem assets  ..........................     240
    - 10.3.1   General approach to valuing ecosystem assets  ..............     240
    - 10.3.2   Scope and definition of returns...........................     242
    - 10.3.3   Valuation of   returns.....................................     243
    - 10.3.4   Future flows of services in physical terms  ..................     244
    - 10.3.5   Ecosystem asset life .....................................     245
    - 10.3.6   Expected institutional arrangements  ......................     246
    - 10.3.7   Discounting ...........................................     246
    - 10.3.8 Measuring changes in the present value of ecosystem assets 
      over an accounting period ...............................     247
- Appendix A10.1 Application of the NPV method for valuing ecosystem 
  assets and changes in ecosystem assets .................     249

- 11.    Integrated and extended accounting for ecosystem services and assets.......     261
  - 11.1   Introduction..................................................     261
  - 11.2   Extended SUTs ...............................................     262
  - 11.3   Extended balance sheets .......................................     263
    - 11.3.1   Introduction ...........................................    263
    - 11.3.2   Structure of an extended balance sheet ....................     266
    - 11.3.3   Aligning ecosystem asset values with the values of SNA assets     267
  - 11.4 Assigning economic ownership and allocation of degradation and 
    enhancement .................................................     272
    - 11.4.1   Considerations in assigning economic ownership...........     272
    - 11.4.2   Institutional sector for ecosystem assets ...................     272
    - 11.4.3 Allocation of degradation and enhancement  
      to  economic units.......................................     274
  - 11.5 Integrated sequence of institutional  
    sector accounts ...............................................     274
    - 11.5.1   Introduction ...........................................     274
    - 11.5.2   Structure of the extended sequence of accounts.............     275
    - 11.5.3   Adjusted income aggregates..............................     276
- Appendix A11.1  Example of an extended SUT .........................     279

### Section E: Applications and extensions of SEEA (Section overview  ..........................................................     283)
- 12.   Complementary approaches to valuation.................................     285
  - 12.1   Introduction..................................................     285
  - 12.2   Building connections with welfare values.........................     285
    - 12.2.1  Introduction ...........................................    285
    - 12.2.2  Bridge table between accounting and welfare values.........     286
    - 12.2.3 Assessing externalities, ecosystem disservices and health 
      outcomes ..............................................    288

*Source: Preface and Table of Contents from the PDF chapter "seeaeaea - Preface" (seeaeaea - Preface ..................................................................       iii).*

### 12.3   Alternative measures of income, wealth and degradation  ..........     291

### 12.3   Alternative measures of income, wealth and degradation

### 12.3.1 Introduction
- Section heading: "Introduction"

### 12.3.2 Restoration cost-based approaches to measuring degradation
- Section heading: "Restoration cost-based approaches to measuring degradation"

### 12.3.3 Polluter pays presentation of degradation
- Section heading: "Polluter pays presentation of degradation"

### 12.3.4 Defensive expenditures
- Section heading: "Defensive expenditures"

### 12.3.5 Alternative measures of environmental income
- Section heading: "Alternative measures of environmental income"

### 12.3.6 Alternative approaches to asset valuation
- Section heading: "Alternative approaches to asset valuation"

### 12.3.7 Extended modelling/greened economy modelling
- Section heading: "Extended modelling/greened economy modelling"

*Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/manuals-and-guides/2025/english/seeaeaea.pdf*

### Chapter 1

### Chapter 1

### Introduction
- Healthy ecosystems and biodiversity are fundamental to supporting and sustaining people’s well-being, their communities and their economies.
- The environment is under pressure, and securing and improving livelihoods requires facing consequential risks.
- These challenges have been recognized at local, national and global levels and are reflected in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including the Sustainable Development Goals, and other global instruments, such as the Paris Agreement.
- The Paris Agreement was adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
- It is expected that a post-2020 global biodiversity framework, designed to bend the curve of biodiversity loss, will be finalized and adopted at the fifteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
- There is growing recognition that degradation of nature requires economic and social policy responses in addition to environmental policy responses; decision makers across all sectors must consider environmental context, dependencies and impacts.

### What is SEEA EA?
- SEEA EA is a spatially based, integrated statistical framework for:
  - organizing biophysical information on ecosystems,
  - measuring ecosystem services,
  - tracking changes in ecosystem extent and condition,
  - valuing ecosystem services and assets, and
  - linking this information to measures of economic and human activity.
- Purpose and emphasis:
  - Make visible the contributions of nature to the economy and people.
  - Record impacts of economic and other human activity on the environment.
  - Incorporate a wider range of benefits that accrue to people than is captured in standard economic accounts.
  - Provide a structured approach to assessing dependence and impacts of economic and human activity on the environment.
- Relationship to other frameworks:
  - Complements the measurement of environment–economy relationships described in the SEEA Central Framework.
  - SEEA EA data on ecosystems can be combined with data on environmental pressures, individual resource stocks and environmental responses (expenditures, taxes and subsidies) in the SEEA Central Framework accounts to provide a comprehensive picture of environmental–economic relationships.
- National accounts integration:
  - Uses national accounting principles of the 2008 SNA to integrate environmental and economic data for decision-making.
  - Harmonization aims to mainstream environmental data in economic decision-making and economic data in environmental decision-making.
- Accounting approach:
  - Applies basic accounting principles to organize data in both physical and monetary terms to provide integrated, coherent and consistent data.
  - Facilitates comparable, regular and ongoing measurement.
- Coverage and interpretation:
  - Encompasses all realms: terrestrial, freshwater, marine and subterranean ecosystem realms.
  - Focuses on ecosystem services (direct and indirect uses) but does not directly address existence values and captures only a portion of cultural and spiritual relationships between people and the environment.
  - In monetary valuation, applies the concept of exchange values in line with standard economic accounting principles; these values support comparison with standard economic and financial data but are not equivalent to monetary values that incorporate wider social benefits of ecosystems.
  - Measurement of the economic value of wider social benefits exceeds the scope of SEEA EA (Chapter 12 discusses aspects of links between monetary values in ecosystem accounting and other monetary values).
  - Monetary values from the accounts and wider economic values will not fully reflect the importance of ecosystems; assessments require broader information on biophysical characteristics and characteristics of people, businesses and communities dependent on them.
- Framework role:
  - Provides a structured framework for organizing data to support further analysis and place various perspectives in context, even though it does not incorporate all potentially relevant data.

### Implementation of SEEA EA
- System design and approach:
  - SEEA EA is an integrated, internally consistent series of accounts that can be implemented as a whole or in parts (flexible and modular).
  - Progressive, staged development of account range and detail is an appropriate implementation strategy.
  - Countries may implement only selected accounts or compile accounts only for selected regions; for example, compiling accounts only in physical terms and not monetary terms.
- Monetary accounts considerations:
  - Some compilers may consider data requirements and methodological assumptions for monetary accounts too significant for official statistics, while there may be substantive demand for well-defined and comparable monetary estimates for policy and analysis.
  - Work should focus on compiling accounts highly relevant for decision-making with suitable data and estimation methods.
- Institutional arrangements:
  - National statistical offices (NSOs) operate in different contexts and may collaborate with other agencies and research organizations for ecosystem accounts; multi-institutional approaches are appropriate.
- Data release and interpretation:
  - When compiling monetary accounts, it is recommended that associated physical data (e.g., changes in ecosystem extent and condition and flows of ecosystem services) also be released to facilitate interpretation and application.
  - Interpretation and analysis can be supported through use of other information such as data on environmental protection expenditure, industry value added, employment and population.
- Technical guidance:
  - A range of technical guidance is available on the SEEA website in support of implementation, interpretation and application; this guidance will be expanded progressively.

### Statistical context for ecosystem accounting
- Historical background of SEEA:
  - Work on environmental accounting began in the 1980s addressing internalizing natural resource depletion and degradation into macroeconomic accounting, culminating in the Handbook of National Accounting: Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting (SEEA 1993) (United Nations, 1993).
  - SEEA 1993 responded to Agenda 21 (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992).
  - SEEA 1993 was updated through expert meetings and consultation led by the London Group, resulting in SEEA 2003; the Handbook of National Accounting: Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting 2003 (SEEA 2003) was published in 2007 (United Nations, European Commission, International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and World Bank, 2007).
  - The Statistical Commission established the United Nations Committee of Experts on Environmental-Economic Accounting (UNCEEA) in 2005 with primary objective of mainstreaming environmental–economic accounting in official statistics.
  - The Commission endorsed a second revision process leading to the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012 – Central Framework (SEEA Central Framework); at its forty-third session, in March 2012, the Commission adopted the SEEA Central Framework as the initial version of the international standard for environmental–economic accounts.
  - The SEEA Central Framework standardizes accounting for physical flows, physical and monetary measures of individual environmental assets and environmental transactions.
- Development of SEEA EA:
  - During development of the SEEA Central Framework, topics requiring further research were identified; ecosystem accounting was a primary focus.
  - The Statistical Commission supported development of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012 – Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA) (United Nations, European Commission, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and World Bank, 2014) as a complement to the SEEA Central Framework.
  - At its forty-fourth session, in March 2013, the Statistical Commission endorsed SEEA EEA and encouraged its use by international and regional agencies and countries; SEEA EEA was labeled “experimental” due to novelty and lack of agreed measurement methods and testing.
  - SEEA EEA integrated experience from statistics, national accounting, ecology, natural science, geography, geospatial measurement and environmental economics.
  - In December 2017, the Statistics Division released the Technical Recommendations in support of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012 – Experimental Economic Accounting (United Nations, 2019b) summarizing current state of knowledge and practice and supporting further development and testing.
  - In June 2017, at its twelfth meeting, UNCEEA determined that a revision of SEEA EEA was appropriate and set the goal of elevating facets of ecosystem accounting to the status of an international statistical standard to be established by 2021; the revision process was endorsed by the Statistical Commission at its forty-ninth session, in March 2018.
  - The revision process (led by the Committee of Experts and SEEA Technical Committee on SEEA EEA) established four key areas of revision: (a) spatial units; (b) ecosystem condition; (c) ecosystem services; and (d) monetary valuation and accounting.
  - Five working groups began activities in early 2018; outputs included 23 primary discussion papers, four background papers and numerous issue notes reviewed by technical experts across relevant disciplines.
  - Chapters were drafted, released for two rounds of global consultation through 2020, and the process featured active engagement with many expert communities and global environmental and sustainability initiatives via in-person and virtual forums.

### Conceptual approach of SEEA EA
- SEEA EA’s approach to recording ecosystem stocks and flows draws on prior SEEA-focused research (for example, Vanoli, 1995) and research on extensions to the SNA (for example, Nordhaus and Kokkelenberg, eds., 1999).
- Advances in wealth accounting by the World Bank (2018) and the United Nations Environment Programme (2018) focused on measurement of wealth of natural resources; extensions to capture a wider range of benefits, including ecosystem services, are established in the wealth accounting literature.

*Source: Chapter 1*

### 1.26 In addition to being connected with these economic and accounting approaches,

### seeaeaea - 1.26 In addition to being connected with these economic and accounting approaches,

### Conceptual basis and scope
- The ecosystem accounting framework adapts concepts from ecosystem services measurement such as the cascade model and the IPBES conceptual framework, situating the core ecosystem accounting model within these approaches.
- The framework builds on extensive work on the classification, mapping and delineation of ecosystems and their services.
- The measurement of ecosystem condition connects clearly with long-standing ecological theory and measurement.
- Conclusion: the underlying logic of, and conceptual basis for, ecosystem accounting should be considered to be well established.

### Accounting units, stocks and flows
- Ecosystem accounting represents the biophysical environment as distinct spatial areas, each representing a specific ecosystem type (examples: forests, grasslands, wetlands, cultivated areas, urban areas, rivers, coastal dunes, coral reefs, deep-sea floors).
- Each spatial area of a specific ecosystem type is treated, for accounting purposes, as an ecosystem asset.
- Ecosystem assets are accounted for analogously to SNA treatment of produced assets (e.g., dwellings): an underlying stock and an associated flow of services.
- Recording over an accounting period entails:
  - (a) the stock and change in stock of each ecosystem asset (including entries for ecosystem enhancement and degradation); and
  - (b) flows from that asset in the form of ecosystem services.
- Flows of ecosystem services in any accounting period are related to ecosystem type, size or extent, condition or health, and factors determining levels of use such as population.

### Physical and monetary measurement, and valuation perspective
- Principles for recording stocks and flows apply to both physical and monetary data and encourage combined use of physical and monetary data.
- For monetary entries, SEEA EA applies the concept of exchange values: ecosystem services and ecosystem assets are valued at the prices at which they are exchanged or would be exchanged if there were markets present.
- SEEA EA monetary values are designed to support comparison with conventional economic and financial accounts.
- SEEA EA monetary values are not intended to provide a complete “value of nature”; other economic valuation approaches generally provide larger monetary values and address different analytical questions and policy contexts.
- Physical data on changing condition of ecosystems are essential in many decision-making contexts, either directly or to support interpretation of monetary values; physical data also support discussion of non-monetary environmental values.

### Types of ecosystem accounts and related outputs
- Five types of ecosystem account are described:
  - (a) ecosystem extent accounts;
  - (b) ecosystem condition accounts;
  - (c) ecosystem services flow accounts in physical terms;
  - (d) ecosystem services flow accounts in monetary terms; and
  - (e) monetary ecosystem asset accounts.
- Related outputs include thematic accounts and indicators; these are introduced in chapter 2 and described in detail in the relevant chapters.

### Revisions and methodological refinement
- SEEA EA refines the original conceptual framework set out in SEEA EEA, providing additional explanations and clarifications, and in some areas reinterpretation or reformulation reflecting broader expert discussion.
- Conceptual improvements are evident particularly in ecology and biodiversity concepts and in monetary valuation of ecosystem services and assets; main areas of improvement are described in appendix A1.1.

### Connections to other measurement frameworks and initiatives
- Key features enabling integration with other frameworks:
  - Designed to facilitate comparison and integration with SNA-based economic data (leading to adoption of certain measurement boundaries and valuation concepts).
  - Encompasses accounting for ecosystem assets in terms of both extent and condition, and ecosystem services (where extent/condition measurement is often separate from services measurement).
  - Enables coherent accounting in both physical terms (e.g., hectares or tons) and monetary terms, supporting the derivation of a wide range of indicators from a single information base.
  - Provides a broad, cross-cutting perspective at country and/or subnational level, allowing use of granular local data.
  - Supports consistent, comparable recording of data over time and provides information on trends in condition indicators, composition of ecosystem types, and relationships between changes in stock and flows.

### Connection to the SEEA Central Framework
- SEEA EA and the SEEA Central Framework together form a comprehensive framework for environment-economy data organization and both apply SNA accounting principles.
- The SEEA Central Framework supplies concepts, definitions and classifications for physical flows, environmental transactions and transfers, and individual environmental assets.
- Connections include alignment between measures of natural inputs and ecosystem services, and between residual flows (e.g., particulate matter, excess nitrogen) and ecosystem services such as air filtration and water purification.
- Ecosystem degradation measurement in SEEA EA complements SEEA Central Framework depletion measures by reflecting loss of future flows of ecosystem services.

### Connection to the SNA and aggregates
- SEEA EA applies and adapts national accounting concepts and principles for accounting for ecosystem assets and services; a summary of most relevant concepts and principles is provided in chapter 2.
- SEEA EA and the SEEA Central Framework constitute a system that complements the SNA by using the same accounting principles to integrate environmental measures in physical and monetary terms to allow comparison with national accounts data.
- SEEA EA encompasses a broader physical asset boundary than the SNA, reflecting the SEEA Central Framework definition of environmental assets.
- Key difference: in the SNA, ecosystem service flows remain outside the SNA production boundary; SEEA EA measures ecosystem services in physical and monetary terms to complement SNA output estimates.
- SEEA EA monetary values can be used to derive complementary aggregates (e.g., value added and wealth adjusted for ecosystem degradation and enhancement).
- Complementary aggregates can be presented via institutional sector accounts and balance sheets building on SNA-labelled accounts; chapter 11 describes these derivations.
- Two key features in these derivations:
  - (a) allocation of degradation to the economic unit that suffers the loss of ecosystem services rather than to the economic unit that causes the degradation; and
  - (b) introduction of a non-SNA quasi-sector referred to as the ecosystem trustee that holds stewardship over ecosystem services that do not directly benefit an individual or private economic actor.
- Extended supply and use tables (SUTs) can record the use of ecosystem services by different economic units to better reflect contribution to production and consumption.

### Connections to other statistical guidance and global initiatives
- SEEA EA incorporates findings from technical outputs on ecosystem accounting developed from 2013 to 2020 and from a wide range of projects and initiatives; many findings were incorporated into Technical Recommendations supporting SEEA EEA.
- Relevant methodological publications and guidance include manuals and frameworks on agriculture, energy, water, the Framework for the Development of Environment Statistics (FDES 2013), the Global Statistical Geospatial Framework, guidance linking ecosystem accounting to tourism measures, ocean accounts, and species accounts guidance.
- SEEA EA provides a robust framework and associated data to support global environmental and sustainability initiatives, and information collected through those initiatives can provide source data for ecosystem accounts.
- Examples of connected initiatives include:
  - Monitoring of the Sustainable Development Goals, in particular Goals 6, 14 and 15;
  - Post-2020 global biodiversity framework under the Convention on Biological Diversity and its monitoring framework.

*Source: seeaeaea - 1.26 In addition to being connected with these economic and accounting approaches, (seeaeaea.pdf) https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/manuals-and-guides/2025/english/seeaeaea.pdf*

### Introduction

### seeaeaea - Introduction

### Measurement frameworks and international initiatives
- Measurement efforts referenced:
  - Measurement of land degradation under the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification 25
  - Measurement of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and removals through activities in the land use, land-use chain and forestry (LULUCF) sector under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and associated nationally determined contributions
  - IPBES regional and global assessments, including the IPBES values assessment
  - Development of the area of wealth accounting, encompassing measures of the value of natural capital (United Nations Environment Programme and World Bank)
  - International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) assessment frameworks, including the Red List of Threatened Species, the Red List of Ecosystems and A Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas: Version 1.0 (Gland, Switzerland, 2016); and knowledge products such as the World Database on Protected Areas (a joint project of the IUCN and the United Nations Environment Programme, and managed by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC))
  - Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON) programmes of work on biodiversity, including the listing of essential biodiversity variables (EBVs) and essential ecosystem services variables (EESVs); and the Group on Earth Observations Earth Observations for Ecosystem Accounting (EO4EA) initiative

- Key observation (paragraph 1.48):
  - The relevant measurement and reporting frameworks across these initiatives are currently not aligned at the level of data items and definitions.
  - All initiatives reflect commitment to a shared broad goal: ensuring environmental stocks and flows become a standard feature of decision-making.
  - Opportunity: the statistical community can support improved alignment of data and indicators and enhance collaboration and engagement.

- Data reuse opportunity (paragraph 1.49):
  - Compilers of ecosystem accounts can assess potential to use or adapt data from the above initiatives for compiling ecosystem accounts.
  - Consideration should be given to how data used in state of environment reports or environmental impact assessments might become sources for accounting.

### Measurement, implementation and institutional roles
- Role overview (paragraph 1.50):
  - Roles of different agencies in implementation and alternative compilation pathways are summarized.
  - Users of accounts include policymakers and analysts, ecosystem and natural resource managers, private sector businesses, local communities and other stakeholders.
  - Implementation requires ongoing engagement with these users to ensure accounts are fit for purpose.

- Role of NSOs and changing function (paragraphs 1.51–1.55):
  - NSOs historically produced official statistics independently, often in relative isolation.
  - Recent changes: new technologies and multiple data sources have prompted NSOs to act as data stewards and service providers, facilitating collaborative approaches and providing oversight and governance.
  - Ecosystem accounting is highly cross-cutting and spatial; implementation necessitates participation from many agencies and disciplines, including geography, ecology, economics and statistics, and coordination with subnational agencies.
  - Environmental policy agencies and technical research agencies (geographical and remote sensing data, climate, water resources, biodiversity, environmental monitoring) play critical roles in collecting and validating local environmental data and knowledge.
  - NSOs should provide oversight and governance, offering independent and expert opinion on data to ensure trust and quality; their independence confers an authoritative voice within government.
  - SEEA support materials:
    - SEEA website: https://seea.un.org/ 26
    - SEEA knowledge base: https://seea.un.org/content/knowledge-base 27
    - United Nations Statistics Division publications: Guidelines on Biophysical Modelling for Ecosystem Accounting (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division, 2022a) and Monetary Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Assets for Ecosystem Accounting. Interim version (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division, 2022b).
    - Compilers are encouraged to learn from other countries and regions.

### Approaches to compilation of ecosystem accounts
- Sustainability of accounting (paragraph 1.56):
  - Ecosystem accounts are most informative when not compiled as one-off, irregular or short-term studies.
  - Expectation: progressively establish long time series of ecosystem accounting data, strengthening institutional arrangements and measurement approaches over time and underpinning enduring data sets.

- Spectrum of compilation approaches (paragraphs 1.57–1.59):
  - Two ends of the spectrum:
    - “Spatially explicit” approaches: comprehensive and detailed spatial measurement of ecosystem services and rigorous delineation of ecosystem assets.
    - “Minimum spatial” approaches: broad overviews of trends among key ecosystem types and services, limited capacity for spatial outputs (maps).
  - Content is conceptually aligned across approaches but differs in level of detail (e.g., number of ecosystem types).
  - Choice of approach depends on:
    - (a) policy focus;
    - (b) availability of source data;
    - (c) resources available for compilation.
  - Spatial resolution is likely to increase over time as better data and methods become available.
  - Common starting point: compilation of ecosystem extent accounts as a statistical frame; global data sets can serve as a first step if national-level data are not available.
  - Subsequent efforts: ecosystem condition accounts and quantification of ecosystem services flows.
  - Monetary valuation is optional and commonly undertaken as the final part of the compilation process.

### Uses, applications and limitations of ecosystem accounting
- Features of ecosystem accounts (paragraphs 1.60–1.62):
  - Ecosystem accounts provide information that is:
    - Comprehensive: accounting for all ecosystem types across terrestrial, freshwater, marine and subterranean realms and for a wide range of ecosystem services.
    - Structured: follows an internationally agreed accounting framework coherent with agreed rules aligned with those of the SNA.
    - Consistent: presents data consistent over time and with respect to concepts and classifications.
    - Coherent: integrates a broad range of data sets to provide information on ecosystem services and assets.
    - Spatially referenced: links data spatially to the scale of ecosystems and enables integration across different accounts.
    - Adaptable: allows targeted measurement scopes appropriate to the context and expandable over time.

- Policy support and applications (paragraphs 1.61, 1.63–1.65):
  - Ecosystem accounting can:
    - Highlight ecosystems and services of concern to policymakers.
    - Support design of policy responses and instruments.
    - Assist in ongoing management of ecosystems.
    - Monitor policy effectiveness via performance indicators.
    - Provide detailed spatial information on ecosystem service supply.
    - Support biodiversity assessments.
    - Mainstream environmental data in economic and financial decision-making.
  - SEEA EA primarily supports national-level decision-making, connecting multiple ecosystem types and services to macro-level economic information (e.g., measures of national income, output, value added, consumption and wealth).
  - Applicable at subnational scales (provinces, urban areas, water catchments, protected areas, biodiversity priority areas, coastal zones).
  - Use of spatially explicit data supports coordination of local- and national-scale policies through a common set of data and framing.
  - Ecosystem accounts enable consistent application of techniques including cost-benefit analysis, risk assessments, system-based modelling, scenario analysis and forecasting, and trade-off analysis.
  - Ecosystem account data can complement business and finance sector initiatives recognizing importance of ecosystems and biodiversity.

- Update frequency and complementarity (paragraphs 1.66–1.67):
  - Ideally, accounts should be updated regularly (e.g. annually) based on source data availability and user needs.
  - Accounts provide structured, comprehensive up-to-date databases to support rapid policy-related information requests.
  - Specific policy or investment assessments may require additional information beyond ecosystem accounts, but accounts can define structures and trends and support modelling of environmental and economic impacts.
  - SEEA EA data complement SEEA Central Framework data (see appendix A1.2) which include flows of pollutants and residuals and measures of expenditure on environmental protection and restoration.
  - SEEA EA does not include all potential economic values in monetary valuation, in particular consumer surplus and non-use values; additional measurement and analysis may be needed depending on user requirements.

### Structure and content of SEEA EA
- Sectional structure (paragraphs 1.68–1.70):
  - SEEA EA comprises five sections A to E.
    - Sections A to C: international statistical standard describing the accounting framework and physical accounts.
    - Section D: internationally recognized statistical principles and recommendations for the monetary valuation of ecosystem services and assets.
    - Section E: applications and extensions of ecosystem accounting.
  - Chapter mapping:
    - Chapter 1 of section A: introduction to SEEA EA.
    - Chapter 2: overview of ecosystem accounting framework and relevant national accounting principles.
    - Section B covers accounting for ecosystem extent and condition:
      - Chapter 3: definition and delineation of spatial units (ecosystem assets) and description of the International Union for Conservation of Nature Global Ecosystem Typology (IUCN GET) as a reference classification.
      - Chapter 4: organization and presentation of data on the size of ecosystem assets (ecosystem extent accounts).
      - Chapter 5: three-stage approach to accounting for ecosystem condition, measuring condition in relation to ecosystem integrity and structuring ecosystem characteristic data using the SEEA ecosystem condition typology (ECT), referenced to a condition appropriate for the ecosystem type.

*Source: seeaeaea - Introduction (https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/manuals-and-guides/2025/english/seeaeaea.pdf).*

### 1.71  Section  C  presents  accounting  for  ecosystem  services  in  physical  terms.  The

### seeaeaea - 1.71  Section  C  presents  accounting  for  ecosystem  services  in  physical  terms.  The

### Section C — accounting for ecosystem services in physical terms
- Chapter 6: conceptual issues including
  - link between ecosystem services and benefits
  - defining characteristics of final and intermediate services
  - accounting treatments for selected ecosystem services and other flows
  - definition of ecosystem capacity
  - SEEA ecosystem services reference list providing descriptions for 33 ecosystem services
- Chapter 7: builds on SUTs to display accounting entries for the ecosystem services flow account in physical terms and discusses specific measurement issues, such as defining measurement baselines for the quantification of ecosystem services flows for accounting purposes

### Section D — monetary valuation and ecosystem asset accounts
- Chapter 8: outlines the principles of monetary valuation for accounting purposes, highlighting the application of the concept of exchange value as described in the SNA
- Chapter 9: outlines how accounting entries are obtained for the ecosystem services flow account in monetary terms, building on the same account in physical terms; summarizes appropriate valuation techniques for estimating flows of ecosystem services in monetary terms for accounting purposes
- Chapter 10: describes the monetary ecosystem asset account, including
  - entries for the opening and closing value of ecosystem assets
  - entries for changes in value due to degradation, enhancement and other changes in value
  - description of the net present value (NPV) approach to the valuation of ecosystem assets
- Chapter 11: demonstrates how monetary values from the ecosystem services flow account in monetary terms and the monetary ecosystem asset account can be combined with the standard SNA accounts to compile extended economic accounts, including extended SUTs, extended balance sheets and extended sequence of institutional sector accounts

### Section E — applications and extensions of ecosystem accounts
- Chapter 12: considers complementary approaches to valuation, placing ecosystem accounting values in a wider environmental-economic valuation context
- Chapter 13: describes thematic accounting to support discussion and analysis of specific environmental themes, including biodiversity, climate change, oceans and urban areas as examples
- Chapter 14: examines links between ecosystem accounts and indicators and indicator frameworks, including those associated with monitoring global agreements such as those proposed for Convention on Biological Diversity and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

### Supporting material, examples and research agenda
- Several chapters include appendices with classifications, examples and illustrative material to support concepts and compilation of accounts
- Annex I: stylized example of accounting for a limited set of ecosystem types and ecosystem services
- Annex II: research and development agenda
- Glossary of key terms and list of references included

### Appendix A1.1 — From SEEA EEA to SEEA EA: main conceptual changes
- A1.1–A1.2: SEEA EEA presented initial measurement framework; Statistical Commission welcomed SEEA EEA at its forty-fourth session, in 2013; SEEA EA builds on SEEA EEA definitions and accounting treatments
- A1.3: relabelling and role changes for spatial units
  - land-cover/ecosystem functional unit relabelled as an ecosystem asset (key conceptual unit)
  - ecosystem accounting units relabelled as ecosystem accounting areas (EAAs)
  - BSUs retained for implementation rather than as a nested hierarchy
- A1.4: SEEA EA provides an agreed classification of ecosystem types based on IUCN GET and principles for delineation of ecosystem assets by ecosystem type, facilitating coherent accounting for ecosystem extent
- A1.5: expanded description of accounting for ecosystem condition; focus on ecosystem integrity; three-stage approach to accounting for ecosystem condition: selection of variables, referencing of indicators and derivation of aggregate ecosystem condition indices; covers SEEA ECT organization of characteristics, variables and indicators of condition and application to natural and anthropogenic ecosystems
- A1.6: definition of ecosystem services unchanged from SEEA EEA but substantive improvements in discussion of links to benefits and well-being, boundary with abiotic flows, and definition of intermediate services; development of comprehensive reference list of ecosystem services in consultation with custodians of leading classifications; refined accounting treatments for biomass provisioning services, global climate regulation services and water supply-related services; introduction of a complete SUT for ecosystem services in physical terms
- A1.7: SEEA EA provides a definition of ecosystem capacity and descriptions of potential supply and ecosystem capability but does not present an example of an ecosystem capacity account
- A1.8: monetary valuation challenges recognized; retention of exchange value concept and NPV technique; improved description of links to welfare value and ranking of valuation techniques by preference; definitions developed for monetary ecosystem asset account entries including ecosystem degradation and ecosystem enhancement
- A1.9: clarified design of extended monetary accounts combining ecosystem accounts with standard SNA accounts; third alternative sequence of institutional sector accounts introducing an ecosystem trustee agreed as appropriate and presented in chapter 11
- A1.10: SEEA EA extends beyond SEEA EEA by covering a wide range of applications and extensions in last three chapters, including complementary approaches to valuation, derivation of indicators, combined presentations and thematic accounting (including biodiversity and carbon stocks)

### Appendix A1.2 — Linking SEEA EA and the SEEA Central Framework
- A1.11: SEEA EA complements the SEEA Central Framework to provide a complete description of environment–economy relationships using the same accounting principles; complementarity can be considered for definition of environmental assets and within a DPSIR framework
- A1.12: SEEA Central Framework definition of environmental assets encompasses measurement of individual environmental assets and ecosystem assets; asset boundary broader than SNA asset boundary because it establishes a physical boundary and does not require benefits to accrue to owners
- A1.13–A1.14: SEEA Central Framework focuses on individual resources used in production (minerals, timber, water, soil) within SNA production boundary; SEEA EA focuses on ecosystems functioning together and broadens benefits in scope to include a wide range of ecosystem services (including contributions to production and other services such as air filtration, water regulation and recreation)
- A1.15–A1.16: SEEA EA focuses on state and impact components of DPSIR; measures of changes in ecosystem types, condition and services provide a more complete picture of environmental state and impacts than Central Framework alone; Central Framework provides data on physical flows and stocks supporting analysis of pressures and responses (environmental taxes/subsidies, environmental protection expenditure, EGSS)
- A1.17: Central Framework typically national-level focus; ecosystem accounting has subnational focus with detailed spatial data and models; integration may require spatial disaggregation of residual flows to link pressures to changes in ecosystem condition
- A1.18: both frameworks apply exchange value concept and NPV approach for valuation; difference is scope of flows in valuation—Central Framework limited to SNA scope (extraction/harvest), SEEA EA extends to all relevant ecosystem services, expanding scope of wealth
- A1.19: when combined, SEEA Central Framework and SEEA EA present a rich and coherent data set though neither alone provides a complete body of information for analysing environment–economy relationships

*seeaeaea - 1.71  Section  C  presents  accounting  for  ecosystem  services  in  physical  terms.  The*

### Appendix A1.2: Linking SEEA EA and the SEEA Central Framework

### Appendix A1.2: Linking SEEA EA and the SEEA Central Framework

### Coherence between ecosystem accounts and Central Framework asset accounts
- Ecosystem accounting requires coherence between changes in ecosystem extent/type and changes in individual environmental asset accounts (example: a change in ecosystem type from forest to cultivated land recorded in ecosystem accounts should be reflected in a reduction in timber resources in the asset account for those resources).
- Link between ecosystem extent and land cover/land use:
  - For terrestrial areas there should be a reasonable concordance between data on land cover and ecosystem extent since land cover is a key variable in delineating ecosystem types.
  - For cultivated areas, data on land use may be considered in delineating ecosystem types.
- Advantages from coherence in physical stocks:
  - Materials and documentation developed for measurement of water resources (SEEA-Water) and for agriculture, forestry and fisheries (SEEA AFF) can support ecosystem accounting, especially regarding methods and data sources, despite not being developed specifically for ecosystem accounting.
- Areas where Central Framework asset-accounting approaches are applied in SEEA EA:
  - Accounting for carbon and accounting for species populations — asset accounting approaches based on measurement of stocks and changes in stocks are applied.
  - Measurement-related materials emerging in these two areas can support measurement of ecosystem assets and ecosystem services and should be coherent with individual environmental asset accounts of the Central Framework.
- Concepts distinguished:
  - Depletion: defined in relation to using up the stock of resources relative to rates of regeneration (individual resource focus).
  - Degradation: defined in relation to changes in condition and future flows of ecosystem services (ecosystem asset focus).
- Relationship between depletion and degradation:
  - Depletion measurement centers on an individual resource with a single benefit stream, enabling a direct connection between stock changes and future benefit streams.
  - Degradation involves multiple services supplied by a single ecosystem asset; relationships between each service and changes in condition vary.
  - For provisioning services (e.g., wood or fish biomass) there should be a reasonably close relationship between measures of depletion and measures of degradation for a given ecosystem asset.

*Environmental flows*

### Environmental flows: definitions, scope differences, and recording in SEEA EA
- SEEA Central Framework categorizes flows into three types: natural inputs, products, and residuals (paras. 3.45 and 3.73 referenced in source).
- Natural inputs (Central Framework definition): “all physical inputs that are moved from their location in the environment as a part of economic production processes or are directly used in production”.
- Key scope differences between the SEEA Central Framework and SEEA EA:
  - Natural inputs include mineral and energy resources, inputs from soil resources (excavated) and energy inputs from renewable sources (e.g. solar, wind). These inputs are excluded from the scope of ecosystem services but may be recorded as abiotic flows within SEEA EA.
  - Natural inputs include timber, aquatic resources (e.g. fish) and other biological resources only where production does not entail cultivation or is unmanaged. In SEEA EA, provisioning services are recorded in contexts both of cultivation and of non-cultivation.
  - Natural inputs include water resources. In SEEA EA, following chapter 6, these flows may be recorded as a proxy for ecosystem services underpinning water supply (e.g., water regulation and water purification) but otherwise should be recorded as abiotic flows.
  - Natural inputs include nutrients and carbon, nitrogen and other elements. These flows are not commonly recorded in ecosystem accounting but may be relevant for some regulating and maintenance services (for example, global climate regulation and water purification).
  - Natural resource residuals (flows extracted/harvested and immediately returned to the environment, e.g., discarded catch, felling residues) are recorded in SEEA EA by recording provisioning service flows in gross terms before recording natural resource residuals — aligning with gross recording of natural inputs in the Central Framework.
- Treatment of products and residuals:
  - Physical flows of products occur within the economy and are not recorded within SEEA EA, though in concept final ecosystem services contributing to SNA benefits can be linked to physical product flows (relevant for “footprints” and tracing ecosystem services embodied in traded goods and services).
  - Residuals (flows discarded, discharged or emitted by establishments and households through production, consumption, or accumulation) are generally not recorded directly in ecosystem accounts; instead:
    - Reflected in measures of environmental pressures that may be used as proxies in assessment of ecosystem condition.
    - Reflected in measures of flows of ecosystem services provided by assets that receive, store or process residuals (example: PM2.5 absorbed by trees used in measurement of air filtration services).
- Importance of residuals for ecosystem accounting:
  - Quantities of residual substances not broken down or absorbed are of particular interest because they affect ecosystem assets’ capacity to supply ecosystem services.
  - Developing the ability to quantify feedback loops from residual flows to ecosystem condition is an important motivation for clarifying links between ecosystem accounting and Central Framework accounts.
  - Residual flow information is relevant to assessment and valuation of ecosystem disservices and externalities (chapter 12 addresses these topics).
- Structure of ecosystem services flow accounts:
  - Derived from PSUT design in the SEEA Central Framework with three main alterations:
    - Instead of one column for the environment as a whole (PSUT), the ecosystem services flow accounts contain multiple columns, each for a different ecosystem type.
  - Coverage differences:
    - SEEA Central Framework’s natural inputs map mainly to provisioning services; SEEA EA covers provisioning, regulating and maintenance, and cultural services — the latter two are not included in the Central Framework.
  - Spatial connectivity:
    - Central Framework adopts an individual resource perspective and focuses on national-scale accounting without reflecting spatial connections between stocks and flows.
    - Ecosystem services flow accounts can record intermediate services that reflect dependencies among ecosystem assets and present accounting results spatially (e.g., maps).

*Environmental transactions*

### Environmental transactions and policy relevance
- Chapter IV of the SEEA Central Framework focuses on recording environmental transactions including environmental taxes, subsidies, other environment-related payments, and environmental activity accounts.
- Information on environmental activities (notably ecosystem restoration) is relevant to:
  - Compilation of ecosystem accounts.
  - Providing a more comprehensive description of policy responses to changes in ecosystem condition.
  - Assessing effectiveness of ecosystem-related expenditure by comparing expenditures (e.g., on ecosystem restoration) with changes in ecosystem condition and flows of ecosystem services.
- Of greatest relevance are 4 of the 16 classes of environmental protection activities described under the Classification of Environmental Activities (SEEA Central Framework, annex I, sect. A):
  - protection of ambient air and climate (class 1);
  - protection of biodiversity and landscapes (class 6);
  - management of other biological resources (excluding timber and aquatic resources) (class 13);
  - management of water resources (class 14).
- Environmental taxes, subsidies and other environment-related payments:
  - Often directly connect a specific activity to its effect on particular ecosystems and their services (examples: taxes to reduce pollution that would reduce river-system condition; payments to ecosystem managers to conserve land or maintain species populations such as pollinators).
  - Data on taxes and subsidies from SEEA Central Framework accounting, when available at sufficient granularity, can be compared to ecosystem-account-recorded changes to support assessment of policy instrument effectiveness.

*Principles of ecosystem accounting — overview and measurement perspectives*

### Principles and measurement perspectives (summary from Chapter 2 introduction)
- Purpose and approach:
  - Ecosystem accounting systematically records stocks and flows of selected ecosystems and documents relationships among ecosystems, people and economic units to analyse ecosystems’ roles in supporting human and economic activity and impacts of those activities.
  - Emphasizes spatially explicit measurement (location, arrangement, change over time).
  - Presents accounting concepts and structures in both physical and monetary terms and applies 2008 SNA national accounting principles to facilitate comparison with conventional economic accounts (e.g., GDP).
- Five distinct measurement perspectives integrated in SEEA EA:
  - Spatial: forms a comprehensive measurement base by using the ecosystem concept to establish occurrences of ecosystems within a territory classified in mutually exclusive ways.
  - Ecological: focuses measurement on ecosystem integrity, health, condition, resilience and ecological thresholds.
  - Societal benefit: views ecosystems as sources of benefits for people, economy and society, either relationally or as suppliers of services and benefits.
  - Asset value: views ecosystems as assets that provide future services and benefits depending on ecological status and social demand; considers ecosystem degradation and enhancement.
  - Institutional ownership: considers ecosystems in relation to economic and legal entities, stewardship, and allocation of degradation costs.
- Use of the label “ecosystem asset”:
  - Applied to avoid confusion from multiple labels across perspectives and to integrate perspectives.
  - “Ecosystem asset” refers to spatially defined statistical units (spatial), ecological functional units (ecological), supply/producing units delivering services (societal benefit), stores of future value (asset value), and entities with legal/social/institutional status (institutional ownership).
- Single statistical unit across accounts:
  - A unique feature is using the same statistical unit across all accounts (based on the spatial perspective), facilitating coordination and integration of data across perspectives.
- Spatial perspective as linkage:
  - Ecosystem assets are contiguous spaces covered by a specific ecosystem type with distinct biotic and abiotic components and interactions — a statistical representation aligned with the Convention on Biological Diversity definition of ecosystem.
  - Ecosystem assets, defined this way, remain nested within the broader concept of environmental assets as defined in the SEEA Central Framework (components of the biophysical environment, not linked to ecological status, benefit flows or ownership).

*Key exact numeric and enumerative references preserved from the source*
- "three main alterations" to PSUT design.
- PSUT covers "three types of flows: natural inputs, products and residuals".
- "4 of the 16 classes" of environmental protection activities identified as of greatest relevance.

*Italic source attribution line*
_Appendix A1.2: Linking SEEA EA and the SEEA Central Framework — seeaeaea - Appendix A1.2: Linking SEEA EA and the SEEA Central Framework (source PDF)._

### 2.12 The central logic of the ecosystem accounting framework builds from the defini-

### 2.12 The central logic of the ecosystem accounting framework builds from the definition of an ecosystem asset

### Framework overview: ecosystem assets, EAAs, extent, condition, services, benefits, flows
- An ecosystem asset is the foundational unit; a set of ecosystem accounts encompasses those ecosystem assets within a defined EAA.  
- An EAA is the geographical territory for which an ecosystem account is compiled (examples given: boundary of a country, a subnational administrative area, a water catchment or a protected area).  
- Within an EAA, ecosystem assets reflect different ecosystem types, each with its own structure, function, composition and associated ecological processes (paragraphs 2.12–2.14).  
- Exact definitions and relationships:
  - Ecosystem extent: the size of an ecosystem asset; most commonly measured in terms of spatial area (paragraph 2.13).  
  - Ecosystem condition: the quality of an ecosystem measured in terms of its abiotic and biotic characteristics (paragraph 2.13).  
  - Ecosystem services: contributions of ecosystems to benefits used in economic and other human activity; “use” includes direct physical consumption, passive enjoyment and indirect use (paragraph 2.14).  
  - Benefits: goods and services ultimately used and enjoyed by people and society; may be captured in current measures of production (e.g. food, water, energy, recreation) or lie outside such measures (e.g. clean water, clean air, flood protection) (paragraph 2.15).  
  - Flows of ecosystem services: observable interactions between economic units, people and ecosystems; some interactions are not monetary but some value can be represented in monetary terms (paragraph 2.16).  
- The connection between stock and flow components is embodied in the concept of ecosystem capacity: the ability of an ecosystem asset to provide services into the future; measures with respect to ecological limits underpin a store of future value (paragraph 2.18).  
- Relationships among these components are displayed in figure 2.1 (paragraph 2.17).

### Ecological considerations (section 2.2.4): location, functioning, dynamics, biodiversity
- Human influence across a spectrum:
  - Natural forest or wetland: ecosystem processes dominate and fewer impacts from human management (paragraph 2.19).  
  - Intensively cultivated fields or intensive aquaculture ponds: ecosystem processes heavily influenced by human management (paragraph 2.19).  
  - Ecosystems close to or within areas of human settlement may be significantly affected by human activity (e.g. pollution) yet retain some functioning characteristics (paragraph 2.19).  
- Key spatial properties to consider when assessing ecosystems (paragraph 2.20):
  - Extent, size or area.  
  - Spatial configuration (arrangement and organization of components).  
  - Landscape or seascape forms (e.g. mountain regions, coastal areas) within which the ecosystem is situated.  
  - Climate and associated seasonal patterns.  
- Key functional properties (paragraph 2.20):
  - Abiotic components (e.g. mineral soil, air, sunshine, water).  
  - Biotic components (e.g. flora, fauna, microorganisms).  
  - Structure (e.g. trophic layers).  
  - Processes (e.g. photosynthesis, decomposition).  
  - Functions (e.g. recycling of nutrients, primary productivity).  
- Scale and connectivity (paragraph 2.21):
  - Ecosystems can be identified at different spatial scales (small pond to tundra over millions of hectares).  
  - Ecosystems are interconnected, often nested and overlapping; processes operate over varying timescales; scale depends on focus (internal interactions vs. ecosystem types).  
  - Footnote: A landscape or seascape (including those involving freshwater) is defined for accounting purposes as a group of contiguous, interconnected ecosystem assets representing a range of different ecosystem types (footnote 33).  
- Dynamics and resilience (paragraphs 2.22–2.23):
  - Ecosystem resilience: propensity to withstand pressures or return to initial condition after impact; not fixed and may change over time (degradation, enhancement, external effects such as climate change).  
  - Presence of thresholds, tipping points and irreversibilities when ecosystem processes break down.  
  - Non-linear relationships and complex dynamics across multiple time frames make behavior difficult to predict; time series of accounts recording extent and condition can reveal dynamics.  
  - Ecosystem services flow account can record effects of changing dynamics on supply and use of services; expected future flows affect assessments of ecosystem capacity and monetary values (paragraph 2.23).  
- Biodiversity (paragraphs 2.24–2.26):
  - Definition: biodiversity is variability among living organisms from all sources including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems (paragraph 2.24).  
  - SEEA EA incorporates data on aspects of ecosystem diversity and between-species diversity (species diversity); within-species (genetic) diversity effects are implicit but not separately identified (paragraph 2.24).  
  - Processes leading to biodiversity change:
    - Ecosystem-level biodiversity loss caused by conversion, reduction or degradation of ecosystems (habitats); increased human use beyond critical thresholds increases biodiversity loss and reduces capacity to maintain function (paragraph 2.25).  
    - Increases in biodiversity (e.g. habitat restoration, natural succession) improve maintenance of ecosystem function and resilience; implications for ecosystem service flows are context- and service-dependent (paragraph 2.25).  
    - Species-level biodiversity loss often shows decreasing abundance of endemic species while some disturbance-tolerant species increase; initial increases in local or national species richness can occur due to introduction/favoring of exotic species, but eventual homogenization and loss of regional endemics follows (paragraph 2.26).  

### Economic considerations (section 2.2.5): services as production inputs, final and intermediate services, integration with national accounts
- Attribution and production framing (paragraph 2.27):
  - Ecosystem services are supplied by single or multiple ecosystem assets; for accounting, it is assumed possible to attribute supply of each service to a single ecosystem type or to estimate contributions when multiple types operate collectively (paragraph 2.27).  
  - Ecosystem assets may be characterized as producing units.  
- Categories of ecosystem services (paragraph 2.28):
  - Provisioning services: supply of food, fibre, fuel and water.  
  - Regulating and maintenance services: filtration, purification, regulation and maintenance activities for air, water, soil, habitat and climate.  
  - Cultural services: experiential and non-material services reflecting perceived or realized qualities enabling cultural benefits.  
  - A reference list of ecosystem services for accounting purposes is presented in chapter 6 (paragraph 2.28).  
- Joint production and inputs (paragraph 2.29):
  - Receipt of benefits often entails joint production—inputs from an ecosystem (ecosystem services) plus human inputs: labour, produced assets, intermediate inputs (e.g. fuel or fertilizer), individuals’ leisure time.  
  - Example: contribution of an ecosystem (lake) to growth of wild fish must be distinguished from benefits that are the fish sold by a fisherman.  
  - Where aquaculture substitutes produced inputs, ecosystem contribution is significantly lower.  
- Focus of SEEA EA (paragraphs 2.30–2.31):
  - SEEA EA focuses on the resulting supply of ecosystem services to economic units and records the supply as transactions between ecosystem assets (suppliers) and economic units (users); these are treated as final ecosystem services (recorded only if a corresponding use by an economic unit exists) (paragraph 2.30).  
  - The framework also supports recording intermediate services between and within ecosystem assets to understand dependencies (e.g. within a water catchment) (paragraph 2.31).  
- Integration with national accounts and implications (paragraphs 2.32–2.35):
  - Definitions and recording approach support integration of ecosystem accounting data with production data recorded in the standard national accounts; ecosystem accounting recognizes flows not recorded within the current production boundary of the SNA and provides opportunity to compile broader measures of output, income and consumption (paragraph 2.32).  
  - Recognition of ecosystems as stores of value related to future flows has three implications (paragraphs 2.33–2.35):
    - 1) Connects extent and condition of ecosystem assets to potential to supply services and benefits into the future; embodied in ecosystem capacity and related to option value and insurance value (paragraph 2.33).  
    - 2) Highlights importance of investment in and management of ecosystem assets to support future supply of services; accounts can present data that demonstrate connections between assets and economic units undertaking investments (paragraph 2.34).  
    - 3) Facilitates discussion on scope of values to consider; accounting/economic perspective embodies value in expected future flows of services but is not a complete representation of societal value (paragraph 2.35).  
  - Section 2.4 will discuss framing of values for ecosystem accounting in greater depth (paragraph 2.35).

### Set of ecosystem accounts (section 2.3): five integrated accounts, connections, extent accounts
- SEEA EA presents a system of integrated ecosystem accounts and related accounts/presentations for complementary presentations, connections to the SNA and the SEEA Central Framework, and policy-relevant themes (paragraphs 2.36–2.37).  
- The five ecosystem accounts within the SEEA EA accounting system (table 2.1) are strongly interconnected (paragraph 2.37):
  - 1 Ecosystem extent account – physical terms  
  - 2 Ecosystem condition account – physical terms  
  - 3 Ecosystem services flow account – physical terms  
  - 4 Ecosystem services flow account – monetary terms  
  - 5 Monetary ecosystem asset account  – monetary terms  
- Key connections among accounts (paragraph 2.38 and figure 2.2):
  - (a) Ecosystem extent account ↔ Ecosystem condition account: both focus on description of ecosystem characteristics.  
  - (b) Those two accounts ↔ Ecosystem services flow account in physical terms: ecosystem characteristics influence supply of ecosystem services.  
  - (c) Ecosystem services flow accounts in physical and monetary terms: connected by use of data on prices of ecosystem services.  
  - (d) Ecosystem services flow account in monetary terms ↔ Monetary ecosystem asset account: monetary asset account requires estimation of future flows of ecosystem services.  
  - Supporting coherence of ecological and economic data is a core feature.  
- Ecosystem extent accounts (paragraph 2.39):
  - Organize data on extent or area of different ecosystem types; support derivation of indicators of composition and change and provide a common basis for stakeholder discussions (e.g. conversions between different ecosystem types).  
  - Help determine the set of ecosystem types appropriate for underpinning structure of other accounts; chapter 3 describes delineation and classification of ecosystem types.  
  - A stylized ecosystem extent account (area) is presented in table 2.2 with accounting entries and stylized ecosystem types (Opening extent; Additions to extent; Reduction to extent; Closing extent) and example columns (Total; Forests; Lakes; Cropland; Urban areas; Wetlands; Seagrass) (paragraph 2.39).

*Source: seeaeaea - 2.12 The central logic of the ecosystem accounting framework builds from the definition of an ecosystem asset (PDF chapter).*

### 2.40 Ecosystem condition accounts. A central feature of ecosystem accounting is its

### 2.40 Ecosystem condition accounts. A central feature of ecosystem accounting is its

### Ecosystem condition accounts
- Purpose: organize biophysical information on the condition of different ecosystem types and relate selected ecosystem characteristics to a reference condition to provide insight into ecosystem integrity.
- Uses:
  - Provide measures relevant to the capacity of an ecosystem to supply different ecosystem services.
  - Record opening and closing condition indices and changes in those indices by type of condition characteristic (see table 2.3).
- Compilation and indices derivation: described in chapter 5.
- Example structure: Stylized ecosystem condition account records:
  - Opening condition value
  - Change in abiotic ecosystem characteristics (physical and chemical state)
  - Change in biotic ecosystem characteristics (composition, structure and function)
  - Change in landscape/seascape characteristics
  - Net change in condition
  - Closing condition value
- Stylized ecosystem types listed in the account: Forests, Lakes, Cropland, Urban areas, Wetlands, Seagrass.

### Ecosystem services flow accounts — physical terms
- Focus: supply of final ecosystem services by ecosystem assets and use by economic units (households, enterprises, government).
- Structure: uses an SUT structure to record flows of final ecosystem services supplied by ecosystem assets and used by economic units during an accounting period; also allows recording of intermediate services flows between ecosystem assets.
- Concepts, definitions, and reference list of ecosystem services: discussed in chapter 6.
- Physical-term ecosystem services flow account description: chapter 7.
- Stylized account (table 2.4) captures:
  - Supply of ecosystem services by ecosystem types (Forests, Lakes, Cropland, Urban areas, Wetlands, Seagrass) and by types of economic units (Industries, Government, Households, Rest of the world)
  - Types of services: Provisioning services; Regulating and maintenance services; Cultural services
  - Uses: Final ecosystem services (used by economic units); Intermediate services (used by ecosystem assets)

### Ecosystem services flow accounts — monetary terms
- Monetary estimates: commonly based on prices for individual ecosystem services multiplied by physical quantities recorded in the physical-term flow account.
- Concepts, definitions, treatments, and measurement techniques for monetary valuation: discussed in chapters 8 and 9.
- Stylized monetary presentation: table 2.4 presents the ecosystem services flow account structure in physical units or currency.

### Monetary ecosystem asset accounts
- Purpose: record stocks and changes in stocks (additions and reductions) of ecosystem assets in monetary terms, based on monetary valuation of ecosystem services and application of the NPV approach to obtain beginning- and end-period values.
- Includes measurement of changes in asset values due to ecosystem enhancement, ecosystem degradation, and ecosystem conversion.
- Detailed asset account treatment: chapter 10.
- Stylized monetary ecosystem asset account (table 2.5) records:
  - Opening value
  - Ecosystem enhancement
  - Ecosystem degradation
  - Ecosystem conversions
  - Other changes
  - Net change in value
  - Closing value
- Stylized ecosystem types in the monetary asset account: Forests, Lakes, Cropland, Urban areas, Wetlands, Seagrass.

### Related accounts and presentations
- Purpose: provide integrated and comprehensive perspective on ecosystems in physical and monetary terms and supply complementary compilations for monitoring and analysis.
- Four broad groups:
  - (a) Extended economic accounts
    - Use ecosystem account data to complement standard SNA economic accounts (production, income, capital formation, wealth).
    - Can compile extended SUTs, extended balance sheets, extended sequence of institutional sector accounts, and aggregate income and wealth measures adjusted for enhancement and degradation of ecosystem assets.
    - Described in chapter 11.
  - (b) Complementary valuations
    - Recognizes measurement choices in scope of services, exchange value concept use, attribution of degradation.
    - Possible complementary valuations using different concepts, scopes, and assumptions (e.g., institutional arrangements) are discussed in chapter 12.
  - (c) Thematic accounts
    - Organize data on themes of specific policy relevance: biodiversity, climate change, oceans, urban areas.
    - Additional accounts relevant for themes: species accounts and carbon accounts.
    - Design and principles considered in chapter 13.
  - (d) Combined presentations and indicators
    - Collate selected variables from ecosystem accounts or other sources to highlight analytically significant relationships and derive indicators.
    - Topics discussed in chapter 14.

### Framing of values in ecosystem accounting
- Primary objective: record ecosystems and ecosystem services within context of economic measures of production, consumption and accumulation (wealth) using exchange values in monetary terms (narrower than measures encompassing consumer surplus and non-use values).
- SEEA EA records stocks and flows in monetary terms based on exchange values to facilitate comparison with national accounts; chapter 8 describes exchange value concept in more detail.
- Integration of physical and monetary data supports assessments based on other value perspectives and informs macroeconomic policy and decision-making.
- Limitations:
  - SEEA EA does not encompass all value perspectives; monetary data based on exchange values do not provide a comprehensive monetary value of well-being associated with ecosystems.
  - Complementary monetary valuation approaches and relationships to other economic valuation concepts: chapter 12 and appendix A12.1.
- Physical data contributions:
  - Ecosystem extent and condition support discussion of intrinsic and non-anthropocentric perspectives.
  - Flows of services in physical terms support instrumental and some relational values.
  - Species accounts, carbon stock accounts, and water resources accounts also support broader value discussions.

### Multiple value perspectives on nature
- SEEA EA context recognizes multiple value frameworks and perspectives (references include TEEB, IPBES, life framework of values, total economic value, and others).
- Definitions used (from Pascual and others, 2017):
  - Anthropocentric values: centred on human beings
  - Non-anthropocentric values: centred on the environment
  - Instrumental value: value attributed as a means to an end
  - Intrinsic value: inherent value possessed independent of human experience or evaluation
  - Relational values: values relative to meaningfulness of relationships between people and the living world and among individuals articulated by institutions
- Key points:
  - Different value perspectives are not additive; each provides a different, potentially incommensurate value for a given ecosystem.
  - Standardized ecosystem accounting value concepts offer a stable common basis for policy design and decision-making, while not providing a holistic societal value of nature.
  - The IPBES values assessment is conducting a comprehensive assessment of value frameworks.37

### Linking ecosystem accounts and multiple value perspectives
- SEEA EA commonly focuses on anthropocentric, instrumental (use) values because these interactions are observable and more readily expressed in monetary terms.
- Monetary valuation scope is limited to ecosystem services included in an account; exchange values do not capture non-use values or the full range of direct and indirect benefits.
- Despite primary focus, ecosystem accounting data (both physical and monetary, spatially explicit) can support discussions across a wider range of value perspectives.
- Spatial and resolution considerations:
  - Accounts are typically described for relatively large areas with multiple ecosystem types and broad user categories (households, businesses, governments).
  - Concepts can be applied at smaller scales or for particular social groups where data availability permits (e.g., specific locations, household income-level differentiation).

### General national accounting principles (relevant to ecosystem accounting)
- Recording entries in ecosystem accounts follows general national accounting principles from chapter 3 of the 2008 SNA; summary rules and principles relevant to SEEA EA are in chapter II of the SEEA Central Framework.
- Specific principles addressed in SEEA EA context include double- and quadruple-entry accounting, time of recording, measurement units, and valuation rules and principles (valuation details in chapters 8 and 9).
- Length of accounting period and frequency:
  - Standard economic accounting period: one year; quarterly accounts are often compiled.
  - Ecosystem trend analysis may require varying lengths of time; beginning and end of the year for ecosystem processes may differ from economic accounting year.38

*Source: System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (sections 2.40–2.68).*

### 2.69 Although considerable variation in the cycles of ecosystem processes exists, it is

### seeaeaea - 2.69 Although considerable variation in the cycles of ecosystem processes exists, it is 

### Accounting period and periodicity
- Recommendation: apply the standard economic accounting period length of one year to ecosystem accounting to align with common analytical frameworks for economic and social data.
- Rationale: alignment best supports general integration of information; many hydrological years may not align with calendar or financial years.
- Practical guidance:
  - Convert or adjust available environmental information to a common annual basis using appropriate factors or assumptions (for example, interpolation or extrapolation techniques).
  - Annual compilation is ideal to provide a consistent time series, but initial implementation may not permit yearly accounts.
  - General ambition: regular reporting of accounts, for example, every three to five years.
  - Limiting factor: availability of source data (e.g., detailed maps of ecosystem types).
  - Compilers may apply interpolation and extrapolation techniques to infill accounting periods not covered in benchmark or baseline data sets.

### Time of recording
- National accounting requirement: transactions and other flows must be recorded as occurring at the same point in time in the various accounts for both units involved.
- Implication for ecosystem services: supply of ecosystem services must be recorded in the same accounting period as the use of those services.
- Timing considerations:
  - Timing of a supply/use transaction may differ from timing when an ultimate benefit is received (example: benefits of global climate regulation occur well after carbon sequestration).
  - Focus of ecosystem accounting: recording the supply and use of ecosystem services rather than the well-being or outcomes that eventuate.
- Asset measures: relate to the opening and closing dates of the accounting period; if data do not pertain directly to those dates, adjustments are required, informed by shorter seasonal and longer natural cycles.

### Units of measurement
- Stocks: measurement unit at a point in time (e.g., total area or total volume).
- Flows: measurement unit per unit of time (e.g., cubic metres per year); appropriate unit of time depends on the selected accounting period length.
- Monetary accounts: all entries must be measured in currency units.
- Physical accounts:
  - Ecosystem extent accounts: recommend a common unit of area such as the hectare to allow assessment of relative size and composition and to enable accounting balances and aggregations.
  - Ecosystem condition accounts: different measurement units for each characteristic and associated variable are likely; normalization using reference levels and reference conditions enables comparison, but no natural aggregation across characteristics without weighting or aggregation approaches.
  - Ecosystem services flow accounts (physical terms): different services recorded in different measurement units; possible to aggregate across columns for a single service but not across rows (different services) without using a standard money metric.
- Fundamental requirement: apply the same measurement unit for both supply and use of a single ecosystem service in physical terms (example: if supply measured in tons per year, use must also be in tons per year) to permit balancing and reconciliation.

### Gross and net recording
- Recording approach: identify explicitly all flows between ecosystem assets and economic units; recording is in gross terms for both physical and monetary measures.
  - Example: final ecosystem services recorded as output of ecosystem assets and as inputs to economic units (e.g., biomass provisioning services recorded as inputs to agricultural units).
  - For SNA benefits: related transaction between two economic units (e.g., sale of agricultural outputs) — no double counting since final ecosystem service recording is offset by recording of input to economic unit.
  - For non-SNA benefits with no corresponding output: record a flow of final ecosystem services from an ecosystem asset and use by an economic unit (example: flows of air filtration services).
- Monetary valuation: relevant values should be calculated net of costs incurred by economic units in using or accessing ecosystem services when valuation methods use observed market prices; deducting these costs ensures monetary valuation focuses on the contribution of the ecosystem (valuation issues discussed further in chapter 9).
- Use of "gross" and "net" in other contexts:
  - "Gross" may indicate an aggregate has not been adjusted for costs of using capital (depreciation, depletion, degradation).
  - "Net" may indicate adjustment for costs of capital or the difference between two accounting items (example: net lending).

### Scale of application
- Framework intent: designed for national (or large subnational) scale, covering multiple ecosystem assets and multiple ecosystem services, analogous to national accounts covering activities of all industries resident within an economic territory.
- Tailored applications:
  - Single ecosystem asset or ecosystem type and/or single ecosystem service (example: a wetland; water regulation). For individual provisioning services, direct connection to natural resource accounting as described in chapter V of the SEEA Central Framework.
  - Single ecosystem asset or ecosystem type and multiple ecosystem services (management of specific ecosystems).
  - Multiple ecosystem types and a single ecosystem service (monitor supply dynamics across broad areas, example: water regulation or global climate regulation).
  - Areas of land with common land-use or land management arrangements or focus of integrated land management practices (example: watersheds, national parks).
- Integration: accounting principles are scale-independent; tailored accounts can integrate into broader projects if consistent measurement boundaries and classifications are adopted.

### Data quality, scientific accreditation, and uncertainty
- Data quality concept for official statistics encompasses relevance, timeliness, accuracy, coherence, interpretability, accessibility and quality of institutional environment.
- Data sources: ecosystem accounting will often draw from disparate data sources developed for scientific, research, management and administrative purposes rather than statistical purposes; care required to ensure data are representative of all contexts within scope of accounting.
- Validation: review and validation of data from independent biophysical and economic studies required to ensure suitability and coherence across accounts.
- Accreditation: compilers are encouraged to develop relevant accreditation processes for scientific and other information at national and international levels; general statistical quality frameworks, such as the International Monetary Fund Data Quality Assessment Framework (DQA F), are applicable to biophysical as well as socioeconomic data.
  - See https://dsbb.imf.org/dqrs/ D Q A F.
- Uncertainty categories (four main categories):
  - (a) uncertainty related to physical measurement of ecosystem services and ecosystem assets.
  - (b) uncertainty in the valuation of ecosystem services and ecosystem assets.
  - (c) uncertainty related to the dynamics of ecosystems and changes in flows of ecosystem services.
  - (d) uncertainty regarding future prices and values of ecosystem services.
- Key points on uncertainty:
  - (a) Physical measurement: scarcity of data for many services makes aggregated-flow measurement prone to uncertainty; many countries do not consistently measure flows at aggregated scales and often estimate flows from point-based observations combined with spatial data layers and non-spatial statistics; aggregated information for provisioning services is generally readily available.
  - (b) Valuation: attributing resource rent to ecosystems for provisioning services requires assumptions about rent generated by other production factors; for non-market services, establishing demand and supply at aggregated scale is often difficult.
  - (c) Dynamics: valuing ecosystem assets requires assumptions about future supply of services; ecosystems may undergo sudden threshold changes to new states, and predicting threshold levels is complex and highly uncertain.
  - (d) Future prices/values: difficulty in predicting future circumstances and the implications of continued modification of climate and ecosystems; non-market valuation methods compound estimation errors.
- Strategy and documentation:
  - Strategies to manage uncertainty will vary by country and selected services.
  - Approaches to limit uncertainties and maximize data robustness need further development based on practical experience.
  - Important to document scope of measurement, definitions applied, methods used and assumptions made in all accounting work.

*Source: System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (excerpt).*

### Chapter 3

### Chapter 3 — Spatial units for ecosystem accounting

### Introduction
- Ecosystem accounting integrates spatially referenced data on the location, size and condition of ecosystems and how those characteristics change over time (para. 3.1).
- Recording ecosystem stocks and changes in stocks in a coherent and mutually exclusive manner supports derivation of indicators, for example, rate of change in forest or grassland areas relative to rate of change in cultivated areas (para. 3.1).
- Delineation and classification of spatial units requires consideration across ecological realms: terrestrial, freshwater, marine and subterranean (para. 3.2).
- Availability, spatial/thematic detail, geospatial comparability and integration of spatial data into shared spatial data infrastructures influence the richness of ecosystem accounts (para. 3.3).
- Data on size and changes in size of ecosystems are recorded in ecosystem extent accounts; location and configuration can be presented in maps and support measurement of ecosystem condition and many ecosystem services (para. 3.4).

### Types of spatial units

H3: Ecosystem assets (primary spatial unit)
- Definition: Contiguous spaces of a specific ecosystem type characterized by a distinct set of biotic and abiotic components and their interactions; a statistical representation of the Convention on Biological Diversity ecosystem definition (para. 3.5).
- Role: Statistical units for ecosystem accounting — the ecological entities about which information is sought and for which statistics are compiled, including extent, condition, ecosystem services and monetary value (para. 3.6).
- Classification: Each ecosystem asset is classified to an ecosystem type (ET) reflecting a distinct set of abiotic and biotic components and their interactions (para. 3.6).
- Presentation: Outputs commonly presented in tables grouped by ecosystem type or in maps showing individual ecosystem assets and their configuration (para. 3.7).
- Relationship to SEEA Central Framework: Ecosystem assets are encompassed by the Central Framework’s environmental assets definition; status as assets is based on biophysical existence and not on flows of benefits or ownership (para. 3.8).
- Three-dimensional concept: Ecosystem assets are envisaged as three-dimensional spaces though often represented by two-dimensional footprints for accounting purposes (paras. 3.9–3.20).
- Terrestrial specifics: Biotic components extend from roots below the surface to vegetation above; abiotic components include soil, surface water, soil water and atmosphere (para. 3.10).
- Marine ecosystems:
  - Marine ecosystems extend throughout the water column and include underlying sediment and seabed as a natural boundary (para. 3.11).
  - Practical recommendation: Delineation based on surface area (seabed area) is likely the most practical measurement pathway, particularly within the continental shelf; example ecosystem types include seagrass meadows, subtidal sandy bottoms and coral reefs (para. 3.12).
  - Continental shelf note: The continental shelf is that part of the continental margin that lies between the shoreline and the shelf break or, where there is no noticeable slope, between the shoreline and the point where the depth of the superadjacent water is approximately between 100 and 200 metres (footnote to para. 3.12).
- Atmospheric boundary:
  - The atmosphere directly above and within an ecosystem is considered part of the ecosystem asset as an abiotic component (para. 3.13).
  - Upper boundary: The atmospheric boundary layer, defined as the bottom layer of the troposphere that is in contact with the surface of the Earth (American Meteorological Society, 2020), forms the natural upper boundary of ecosystem assets for accounting purposes; parts of the atmosphere above this layer are not considered ecosystem assets (para. 3.14).
  - The volume of air in the atmosphere is not included in the measurement scope of environmental assets in the Central Framework (para. 5.16); further discussion on accounting treatment for the atmosphere is part of the SEEA EA research and development agenda (para. 3.15).
- Subsoil boundary and subterranean ecosystems:
  - Subsoil directly involved with ecosystem processes (soil, sediments) is part of ecosystem assets; precise boundary depends on soil, sediment and bedrock structure (para. 3.16).
  - Aquifers: All aquifers contain biotic components and are treated as ecosystems; confined aquifers treated as distinct ecosystem assets from those above them; unconfined aquifers may be treated as distinct or integrated with surface ecosystem assets depending on context (para. 3.17).
  - Subterranean ecosystems (caves, underground streams) satisfy the ecosystem asset definition (para. 3.18).
  - Subsoil abiotic resources that have no direct interaction with surrounding ecosystems (natural gas, oil, coal, mineral ores) are not ecosystem assets but are included under environmental assets (para. 3.19).

H3: Applying the conceptual boundary for ecosystem assets
- Footprint representation: Ecosystem assets conceptually three-dimensional have a two-dimensional footprint defined by intersection of the bounding envelope with Earth's surface; sides assumed vertical so footprints of adjacent assets do not overlap — assets represented by area for most accounting purposes (para. 3.20).
- Subterranean and aquifer footprints: Footprints of subterranean ecosystem assets can be defined in two dimensions but co-exist with surface ecosystem areas and should be accounted for separately depending on analytical requirements (para. 3.21).

H3: Ecosystem accounting area (EAA)
- Definition: The EAA is the geographical territory for which an ecosystem account is compiled and determines which ecosystem assets are included (para. 3.22).
- Construct: An EAA is a two-dimensional construct providing an accounting boundary around a set of ecosystem assets represented by their two-dimensional footprints, such that the sum of the areas of the ecosystem assets equals the total area delineated by the EAA (para. 3.23).
- Spatial relationships: A single ecosystem asset can be assigned to only a single ecosystem type (ET) but multiple occurrences of a single ET can exist within an EAA; tabular presentation shows sum of areas of different ETs equals total EAA (paras. 3.24–3.25; table 3.1).
- Common forms of EAAs include:
  - (a) National jurisdictions and groups of countries (e.g. member countries of the European Union);
  - (b) Subnational administrative areas (e.g. States, provinces);
  - (c) Environmentally defined areas within a country (e.g. water catchments, ecoregions) or across countries (e.g. regions defined by river systems such as the Amazon, the Mekong and the Nile);
  - (d) Other areas of policy or analytical interest such as protected areas; areas owned by specific industries or sectors (e.g. government-owned land); and areas outside national jurisdiction (e.g. open oceans and high seas) (para. 3.26).
- National scope guidance: Consistent with SEEA Central Framework, national jurisdiction scope for ecosystem accounting should include all ecosystems across terrestrial, freshwater and marine realms to the boundary of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Initial scopes may be more limited, but aim to extend coverage to all ecosystems under national jurisdiction (para. 3.27).
- Transboundary considerations: Where countries share administrative boundaries, distinct EAAs are most common; partitioning contiguous ecosystems across countries is appropriate for individual EAAs, but alignment on delineation and classification and complementary transboundary accounts may be advantageous for joint management interests (para. 3.28).
- Typical measurement objective: SEEA EA usually focuses on relatively large and diverse areas encompassing different ecosystem types rather than single ecosystem assets, although compilation for an individual asset is conceptually possible (para. 3.29).
- Non-contiguous EAAs: EAAs usually reflect contiguous areas but may be non-contiguous (e.g. all protected areas within a country or all of a country’s natural grasslands) (para. 3.30).
- Aggregation and presentation: Within an EAA, ecosystem assets are grouped into ecosystem types; ecosystem extent, ecosystem condition and ecosystem services are generally presented for aggregations by ecosystem type based on data compiled for ecosystem assets. Extent accounts show changing total area of each ecosystem type for a given EAA, not changes of each individual asset (para. 3.31).
- Subterranean ecosystems in extent accounting: Because an EAA is two-dimensional, the area of subterranean ecosystems cannot be incorporated in addition to surface-close ecosystem assets; for extent accounts where EAA area and sum of asset areas should be equivalent, subterranean areas should be excluded. Complementary extent accounts for subterranean ecosystems can be compiled where relevant (para. 3.32).
- Complementary marine extent accounts: Complementary extent accounts can cover marine ecosystems beyond the continental shelf or EEZ, encompassing the full range of relevant ecosystem assets including pelagic ocean waters and deep-sea floors; condition and supply/use data for those assets can be incorporated alongside other ecosystem types at least in tabular form (paras. 3.33–3.34).

### Delineating ecosystem assets

H3: General principles
- Basis for differentiation: An ecosystem asset is differentiated from neighbouring ecosystem assets when interactions between biotic and abiotic components within the asset are stronger than interactions with components outside the asset; differences reflected in composition, structure and function (para. 3.35).
- Delineation criteria: Ecosystem assets should be delineated and classified to distinct ecosystem types based on characteristics such as physical structure and type (including vegetation structure and type), species composition, ecological processes, climate, hydrology, soil characteristics, currents and topography (para. 3.35).
- Persistence and homogeneity expectations:
  - Allowing for normal natural variation, general persistence of ecosystem asset characteristics is expected; disturbances like fire and flood do not necessarily imply a change in ecosystem type (para. 3.36).
  - For delineation, the condition of an ecosystem asset is expected to be relatively homogeneous based on the measurement approach to ecosystem condition described in chapter 5 (para. 3.36).

*Source: Chapter 3, seeaeaea - Chapter 3 (PDF).*

### 3.37  In  delineating  ecosystem  assets  for  the  purpose  of  ecosystem  accounting,  the

### seeaeaea - 3.37  In  delineating  ecosystem  assets  for  the  purpose  of  ecosystem  accounting,

### Principles for delineating ecosystem assets (3.37–3.44)
- Ecosystem assets should represent ecosystems and align with the definition of ecosystems under the Convention on Biological Diversity, reflecting consideration of organisms, their environmental setting and ecosystem processes. It is accepted that delineations cannot be perfect representations of a complex ecological reality.  
- Ecosystem assets should be capable of being mapped to support spatially based ecosystem accounting.  
- Ecosystem assets should be geographically and conceptually exhaustive across ecological realms; the “exhaustive” criterion reflects comprehensiveness, both spatially and conceptually, including built environments. The set of ecosystem assets should allow for an EAA to be fully tessellated, that is, filled.  
- Ecosystem assets should be mutually exclusive, both conceptually and geographically: any area on land or the sea floor, or any horizontal depth layer in the ocean, should be occupied by one and only one ecosystem asset. This prevents double counting and is applied within a single dimensionality (one, two or three dimensions).  
- The occurrence and extent of ecosystem assets delineated using these principles can change over time; changes in boundaries (e.g., expansion of urban areas or restoration of wetlands) are recorded as ecosystem conversions in SEEA EA.  
- If an EAA boundary passes through a delineated ecosystem asset, only the area of the ecosystem asset inside the EAA boundary should be included in the account to ensure that the sum of areas of all ecosystem assets equals the total area of the EAA.  
- Practical delineation trade-offs:
  - Number of ecosystem types delineated: more types increases complexity but produces more homogeneous assets.
  - Spatial resolution: low resolution (e.g., 5 x 5 km grid cells) may miss small features; high resolution (e.g., 30 x 30 m grid cells) may identify many distinct assets.
  - Recommendation: select a single spatial resolution per ecosystem account; do not delineate an asset unless its area is sufficiently large to be identifiable at that resolution.

### Approaches to identifying specific features — Linear features (3.45–3.49)
- Distinguish “narrow” linear features (width sufficiently small to be treated as zero in total area accounting) from “wide” linear features (width large enough to warrant separate area recording).  
- Recommended treatments:
  - (a) Rivers and streams: width changes downstream; ideally, sufficiently wide rivers and streams should have their area separately recorded. If delineating area is not possible, record length. Treatment depends on source data type (raster vs vector).  
  - (b) Other linear features ecologically linked to surrounding landscape (e.g., ditches, hedgerows in pasture): recommended not to be separately identified; attribute associated area to the surrounding ecosystem type.  
  - (c) Linear features not ecologically linked to surrounding landscape (e.g., forest access roads): choice either to treat as distinct ecosystem type with associated area if sufficiently wide, or include with surrounding ecosystem types. Choice guided by the added value of a separate ecosystem type for the account or applications.  
- These treatments apply to standard two-dimensional extent accounts. Where linear features are economically, ecologically, or culturally significant, higher-resolution delineation may be necessary to separately identify and account for their area, condition, and ecosystem service flows. A complementary set of one-dimensional extent accounts for recording lengths is described in chapter 4.  
- When a linear feature is attributed to the surrounding ecosystem, the condition of that ecosystem should reflect the presence of the linear feature; changes in linear feature extent (e.g., increases in kilometres of hedgerows) should be reflected in changes in condition measures and may have positive or negative effects depending on context.

### Approaches to identifying specific features — Complex mosaics (3.50–3.51)
- Complex mosaics are spatial areas with a complex mix of ecosystem types (e.g., urban areas, cultivated areas with small farm holdings).  
- In concept, different ecosystem types in a mosaic can be delineated provided resolution is sufficiently high. Distinct EAA boundaries can then be determined for specific spatial areas (e.g., urban or cultivated areas) to support consistency in delineation across wider EAAs. Some ecosystem assets within mosaics (e.g., green and blue spaces in urban areas) may be small relative to similar types outside mosaics.  
- Where there is specific interest in accounting for complex mosaics, applying complementary classifications of ecosystem types (e.g., types of urban areas such as parks, lawns and ponds; types of crops in cultivated areas) is relevant to support analysis and decision-making. Chapter 13 addresses delineation issues for urban areas in thematic accounting.

### Classifying ecosystem assets — general principles (3.52–3.56)
- Ecosystem assets are classified into ecosystem types; any classification used for SEEA EA should satisfy the definition of an ecosystem type (distinct set of abiotic and biotic components and their interactions) and enable application of delineation principles in section 3.3.1.  
- National or subnational compilation may use a large number of ecosystem types for contextual suitability; for international reporting and comparison, a smaller number of higher-level classes facilitates broader use.  
- Recommendations:
  - Use existing national ecosystem classification schemes wherever possible for their local ecological detail. Cross-reference spatial units to the SEEA EA reference classification (IUCN GET) to enable scaling up and comparability. Where national types do not translate directly, apply local ecological expertise to determine cross-referencing.  
  - If no national classification exists, IUCN GET may be used to develop one by scaling down to locally derived ecosystem types.  
  - For international reporting and comparison, apply the SEEA ecosystem type reference classification reflecting IUCN GET ecosystem functional groups (EFGs); aggregation of national classes may be required.

### SEEA ecosystem type reference classification and IUCN GET (3.57–3.66)
- Purpose: provide a common baseline for comparability of ecosystem accounts compiled in different locations.  
- IUCN GET characteristics:
  - Global typological framework applying an ecosystem process-based approach to classification across terrestrial, freshwater, subterranean and marine realms.  
  - Uses ecological assembly theory to identify key properties that distinguish functionally related ecosystems and to synthesize disparate classification approaches.  
  - Structure comprises six levels:
    - Levels 1 to 3 differentiate functional properties of ecosystems.
    - Levels 4 to 6 offer finer national/subnational detail.  
  - David A. Keith and others, eds. (2020) provide a full description of IUCN GET (text reference present in source).  
- SEEA ecosystem type reference classification:
  - Corresponds to IUCN GET levels 1 to 3 to allow national variations in local descriptions while enabling ecologically meaningful groupings for integrating national-level data from different sources (e.g., agriculture, environment, forestry, marine).  
  - Level 1 defines four realms: marine (M); freshwater (F); terrestrial (T); and subterranean (S). The subterranean realm is included understanding that for a standard two-dimensional extent account its ecosystem types will be out of scope. The top level also provides for classification of atmospheric units to an atmospheric realm at a future date. The part of the atmosphere above the atmospheric boundary layer is not included in the scope of ecosystem assets (section 3.2.1).  
  - Level 2 broadly follows the modern functional biome concept; IUCN GET defines 24 biomes:
    - 4 exclusively in the marine realm;
    - 3 exclusively in the freshwater realm;
    - 7 exclusively in the terrestrial realm;
    - 4 exclusively in the subterranean realm;
    - 6 in transitional areas between realms.  
    - Transitional biomes represent interfaces between combinations of marine, freshwater, subterranean and terrestrial realms.  
  - Many level-2 ecosystem types correspond to familiar biomes (e.g., tropical forests, shrublands, deserts, freshwater lakes, pelagic ocean waters). Six biomes are defined by anthropogenic processes.  
  - Level 3 describes Ecosystem Functional Groups (EFGs):
    - An EFG is a functionally distinctive group of ecosystems within a biome, defined consistent with the Convention on Biological Diversity and SEEA EA concept of ecosystem assets.  
    - There are 100 EFGs in IUCN GET.  
    - It is highly unlikely for a country to have assets representative of all EFGs; more commonly, less than 40 EFGs would be present in a single EAA.  
    - A full listing of the EFG classes is provided in appendi 3.2 (referenced in source).  
  - For national/subnational compilation, delineation is expected at fine levels using national classifications; for presentation, fine-level classes may be combined (e.g., to EFG level). For international comparison, reporting at the EFG level (level 3) is appropriate.  
- Specific note on six anthropogenic biomes and their codes:
  - T7 (intensive land-use systems) — includes croplands, pastures, plantations and urban areas;
  - F3 (artificial wetlands);
  - M4 (anthropogenic marine ecosystems);
  - S2 (anthropogenic subterranean voids);
  - MT3 (anthropogenic shorelines);
  - SF2 (anthropogenic subterranean freshwaters).  
- For accounting within these anthropogenic biomes and their composite EFGs, finer detail than EFGs may be required (e.g., urban ecosystems T7.4; annual croplands T7.1). To define spatial units for these cases, it is recommended to use national land-use classes or, as needed, classes of the SEEA Central Framework Classification of Land Use (Central Framework, annex I, sect. B) at the three-digit level.

*Source: seeaeaea - 3.37 In delineating ecosystem assets for the purpose of ecosystem accounting*

### 3.67 The use of IUCN GET as the reference classification of ecosystem types reflects

### seeaeaea - 3.67 The use of IUCN GET as the reference classification of ecosystem types reflects

### Reference classification and integration
- The use of IUCN GET as the SEEA ecosystem type reference classification reflects the need for a globally applicable classification of ecosystem types covering all realms (3.67).
- A range of existing global and regional classifications exist and correspondences among these classifications will be developed to support data integration and compilation of accounts (3.67).
- Examples of other classifications and systems mentioned include:
  - World Terrestrial Ecosystems (Sayre and others, 2020)
  - European Nature Information System and Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES)
  - FAO Global Agro-Ecological Zones
  - SEEA Central Framework Classification of Land Use and Land Cover Basic Rules and Classifications (annex I, sects. B and C)
  - MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer)
  - Classifications used under global conventions such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Ramsar Convention (3.67).
- Correspondence work will build on Bordt and Saner (2019) and work under the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa (2017) (3.67).

### SEEA ecosystem type reference classification (Table 3.2)
- Realms and corresponding biomes (as presented in Table 3.2):
  - Terrestrial
    - T1 Tropical – subtropical forests
    - T2 Temperate – boreal forests and woodlands
    - T3 Shrublands and shrubby woodlands
    - T4 Savannas and grasslands
    - T5 Deserts and semi-deserts
    - T6 Polar-alpine
    - T7 Intensive land-use systems
  - Freshwater
    - F1 Rivers and streams
    - F2 Lakes
    - F3 Artificial fresh waters
  - Marine
    - M1 Marine shelves
    - M2 Pelagic ocean waters
    - M3 Deep-sea floors
    - M4 Anthropogenic marine systems
  - Subterranean
    - S1 Subterranean lithic
    - S2 Anthropogenic subterranean voids
  - Transitional
    - TF1 Palustrine wetlands
    - FM1 Semi-confined transitional waters
    - MT1 Shoreline systems
    - MT2 Supralittoral coastal systems
    - MT3 Anthropogenic shorelines
    - MFT1 Brackish tidal systems
    - SF1 Subterranean freshwaters
    - SF2 Anthropogenic subterranean freshwaters
    - SM1 Subterranean tidal
- Source for Table 3.2: David A. Keith and others, eds. (2020) (page reference: Table 3.2 citation in source).

### Delineation of ecosystem assets and spatial units
- Ecological basis:
  - Distinction between ecosystem assets of different types is ecological, reflecting differing composition, structure and function of biotic and abiotic components (3.68).
  - In principle boundaries are statistically observable through comprehensive and regular ground assessments by ecologists (3.68).
- Practical approach:
  - High resource costs of ground assessments imply delineation will likely rely on remote sensing data from satellites, supplemented by regular ground-assessment programs for calibration (3.69).
  - Geographic information system (GIS) platforms and techniques should be applied to collate and analyse data, supporting integration and manipulation of spatial data from various sources (3.70).
  - Technical guidance on GIS techniques is outlined in the Guidelines on Biophysical Modelling for Ecosystem Accounting (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division, 2022a) (3.70).
- Need for ecological expertise:
  - Incorporate ecological expertise to ensure boundaries are appropriate ecologically and that temporal changes are meaningful; ground-assessment data should be integrated for accuracy and validation (3.71).

### Basic Spatial Units (BSUs) and operationalization
- Definition and purpose:
  - A BSU is a geometrical construct representing a small spatial area used to provide a fine-level data framework within which data on a range of characteristics can be incorporated (3.72).
  - Grid cells are an example of BSUs; other shapes (e.g., polygons) may be used (3.72).
- Application:
  - In a BSU technique, each BSU is attributed with data on characteristics relevant to distinguishing ecosystem asset types; data layers for each characteristic are mapped at the BSU level (3.73).
  - Multiple characteristics are combined to distinguish ecosystem types, including land cover, climate (e.g., temperature regime, precipitation regime, potential evapotranspiration) and landforms (e.g., soil type, lithography, geomorphology) (3.74).
  - Additional characteristics related to water, carbon or nutrients may be added (3.74).
- Data availability and options:
  - Where available, existing maps delineating ecosystem assets may be used; alternatively, maps may be generated from national-level information on land cover, climate, landforms or other characteristics (3.75).
  - If national-level data are not available, global data sets may be used (3.76). Example: the map of World Terrestrial Ecosystems (Sayre and others, 2020) derived from global temperature domains, global moisture domains, global landforms and 2015 global vegetation and land-use data (3.76).
  - As a last resort, single-characteristic land cover data may be used for initial delineation (3.76).
- Intensive land-use systems:
  - For biomes subject to direct human management (particularly T7: Intensive land-use systems), incorporate data on land and ecosystem use in addition to land cover to indicate differing ecological composition, structure and function (3.77).

### Alternative data collection methods and their trade-offs
- Non-spatial data sources:
  - Extent of ecosystem assets may be collected through surveys of landholders and other non-spatial means; useful for certain ecosystem types (e.g., cultivated areas and forests) (3.78).
  - Non-spatial data do not support derivation of maps because precise location and boundaries are not recorded; this increases risks of double counting or missing areas and complicates alignment across ecosystem types (3.78).
  - Non-spatial data remain valuable for data quality assurance and estimation of ecosystem condition and ecosystem services (3.78).

### Use of land-related characteristics in ecosystem accounting
- Importance of terrestrial ecosystems:
  - Terrestrial ecosystems are of immediate relevance due to rapid and significant changes from urban and agricultural expansion (3.79).
- Land-cover and land-use:
  - Land-cover and land-use data are not sufficient alone to delineate ecosystem assets but provide much relevant information for measuring ecosystem extent, service flows and monetary valuation (3.79).
  - Land cover: observed physical and biological cover of the Earth’s surface; relevant country area includes only land and inland waters for land-cover statistics (3.80).
  - The SEEA Central Framework standard classification of land cover is based on the FAO Land Cover Classification System (3.81).
  - Land use: reflects (a) activities undertaken and (b) institutional arrangements for economic production or environmental function maintenance/restoration; implies human intervention or management (3.82).
- Land management and ownership:
  - Land management ranges in degree of human management and can affect ecosystems positively or negatively; monitoring changes in management degree is relevant for links among ecosystem assets, condition and policies (3.83).
  - Landownership links ecosystems, management and economic statistics; cadastres can provide data on ownership for terrestrial ecosystems (3.84).
- Overlay and integration:
  - Data on land cover, use, management and ownership can be overlaid or presented with data on ecosystem extent, condition and services to monitor effects of land management policies (3.85).

### Organizing socioeconomic and other ecosystem characteristic data
- Additional characteristic data:
  - Organize data on stocks and flows of water and carbon; presence of particular species; soil and water quality; temperature, slope and elevation; pollution and residual flows; production of agricultural, forestry and fisheries outputs; indicators for recreational activities and cultural sites (3.86).
- Purpose and benefits:
  - Enrich ecosystem extent, condition and services accounts by integrating spatially detailed socioeconomic data (e.g., demographic data) (3.87).
  - Particular attention to measurement of ecosystem services where supply and use must both be recorded:
    - Some services: supply and use occur in same location (e.g., biomass provisioning) (3.88).
    - Some services: supply and use occur in different locations (e.g., air filtration) (3.88).
    - Some services: supply allocated to combinations of ecosystem assets (e.g., flood mitigation) (3.88).
- BSU-based attribution:
  - Spatial data on additional characteristics should be attributed to ecosystem assets using a BSU-based structure to align and integrate data with varying spatial coverage, scales and projections; an agreed BSU structure or master layer provides computational advantages (3.89).
- Geospatial framework:
  - Countries are encouraged to use the principles of the Integrated Geospatial Information Framework to underpin collation and organization of spatial data; organized data could provide a coherent “one map” including marine ecosystems across many characteristics (3.90).

### Appendix A3.1 — Key ecological concepts underpinning spatial units
- Purpose:
  - Provide non-ecological compilers with an introduction to ecological concepts relevant to delineating and measuring ecosystem assets (A3.1–A3.2).
- Core definitions and processes:
  - Ecosystem: focus on “interacting as a functional unit”; abiotic environment relevant in relation to biota; ecosystem function concerns fluxes such as energy and water, photosynthesis and decomposition (A3.3).
  - Five groups of processes governing ecosystem functioning (A3.4):
    - Resources (energy, nutrients, water, carbon, oxygen, etc.)
    - Ambient environmental conditions (temperature, salinity, geomorphology, etc.)
    - Disturbance regimes (fire, floods, mass movements, etc.)
    - Biotic interactions (competition, predation, ecosystem engineering, etc.)
    - Human activity (anthropogenic processes affecting structure and function)
  - These processes give rise to ecosystem traits (productivity, diversity, trophic structure, physiognomy, life-form types, phenology) which influence stocks of assets and flows of services; variables describing these processes are within the focus of ecosystem condition accounts (A3.5).
- Habitat, biotope, realm, biome:
  - Habitat: location where a particular organism can conduct activities contributing to survival/reproduction; organism-specific and geographical (A3.6).
  - Biotope: often used for community concept and can be equated to an ecosystem asset (A3.7).
  - Realm: major biosphere component distinct in ecosystem organization and function; four core realms are terrestrial, freshwater, marine and subterranean; transitional realms exist between core realms (A3.8).
  - Biome: biotic community at large geographic scales shaped by climatic factors and characterized by physiognomy and functional aspects rather than species composition; often corresponds with climatic regions (A3.9).

*Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/manuals-and-guides/2025/english/seeaeaea.pdf*

### Appendix A3.1: Ecological concepts underpinning spatial units for ecosystem accounting

### Appendix A3.1: Ecological concepts underpinning spatial units for ecosystem accounting

### Biomes, ecoregions, and ecotones
- There is no single authoritative list of biomes; some (for example, tropical rainforest, taiga) are widely recognized, while others (for example, savannas and woodlands on ecotones) vary among specialists.
- Use of the IUCN GET list of biomes is recommended as a reference for SEEA EA.
- Ecoregion definition and properties:
  - An ecoregion is “a geographic group of landscape mosaics” resulting from large-scale predictable patterns of solar radiation and moisture that affect local ecosystems and species distributions.
  - Ecosystem assets within an ecoregion may be functionally connected (for example, upstream ecosystems regulating downstream water and nutrient resources) or functionally unconnected (for example, adjacent subcatchments reflecting the same abiotic conditions).
  - Ecoregions are often used in mapping and described hierarchically; terrestrial ecoregions group into higher-order biogeographic regions (for example, Nearctic, Indomalaya).
  - Ecoregions can be spatially contiguous units of a single biome or subdivisions thereof (for example, West Siberian Taiga and East Siberian Taiga).
- Ecotones:
  - Ecotones are transition areas between two ecosystems along gradients of one or more resources or environmental controls (for example, forest to grassland along a moisture gradient).
  - Determination of precise ecosystem boundaries and ecotone locations is ultimately subjective; where gradients are gentle, ecotones can be extensive.
  - Translation of ecotone gradients into ecosystem classification depends on transition “sharpness” and scale of application.

### Key characteristics of ecosystems (cross-realm)
- Ecosystems occupy space and comprise an abiotic complex, a biotic complex, and interactions between them.
- The appendix focuses on key characteristics linked to ecosystem structure, functioning, classification, and condition; it is not exhaustive but indicates the richness to be considered in delineation and measurement.
- Three core environmental realms described: terrestrial, freshwater (including wetlands), and marine.

### Terrestrial ecosystems — drivers and characteristics
- Principal drivers limiting terrestrial ecosystems: presence and availability of water and nutrients.
- Key drivers: climate, topography and geomorphology, lithology, and human activities.
- Climate (pragmatically defined as statistics of weather) — most relevant climatic parameters:
  - (a) temperature: mean annual temperature; seasonality; temperature of the coldest month; accumulated growing degree days
  - (b) precipitation: total annual precipitation; seasonality
  - (c) potential evapotranspiration: annual total; seasonality
- Topography and geomorphology influence climate, moisture conditions, and nutrient redistribution; examples:
  - hillslopes and plains (hillslopes have improved drainage compared with plains)
  - gentle and steep slopes (steeper slopes have shallower soils, faster drainage and possibly more disturbances owing to mass movements)
  - low and high topography (adiabatic expansion of rising air results in a cooler and wetter (micro)climate on high plains and mountains)
  - profile and planform convexity (convex divergent hillslopes: relatively dry; concave hollows/convergent channels: relatively wet)
- Lithology determines parent material for soil formation and controls vegetation via resource processes and mineral composition.
- Human activities affect terrestrial ecosystems directly (land-cover change, movement of biota) or indirectly (resource use, climate change).
- Key terrestrial ecosystem characteristics:
  - Abiotic: soil and moisture regime
  - Biotic: vegetation, animals and biota (such as fungi and bacteria)
  - These are reflected in variations in structure, composition and function across gradients (for example, tropical rainforest to alpine).
- Soil characteristics relevant to controlling vegetation:
  - Soil chemical properties such as cation exchange capacity
  - Soil physical properties such as texture, porosity, drainage and permeability
  - Soil organic matter, a biota-controlled characteristic
- Vegetation as proxy for biota:
  - Vegetation is a biotic element existing in a physical environmental context and is important in classification and labelling.
  - Vegetation characterized by species assemblages with strong spatial expression and by plant functional traits (see Pérez-Harguindeguy and others (2013)); examples of traits:
    - Growth form: trees, shrubs, grass and corresponding canopy architecture
    - Raunkiær life form: phanerophytes (woody, buds > 25 cm above the ground) and geophytes (buds in dry ground)
    - Life history: annuals versus perennials
    - Leaf type and phenology: broad-leaved, needle-leaved, deciduous, evergreen
    - Adaptation to stress: xerophytes (moisture stress), halophytes (salt stress)

### Freshwater ecosystems and wetlands — drivers and characteristics
- Freshwater ecosystems: presence of surface waters with variable spatial extent over time and largely aquatic vegetation; main distinction between flowing (rivers and streams) and low-/non-flowing systems (lakes, ponds, wetlands).
- Many drivers and characteristics vary predictably along downstream gradients.
- Rivers and streams — key drivers and abiotic characteristics:
  - Morphology: stream order (position from source to outlet as proxy for drainage area); fluvial zone (erosional, transfer, depositional); sediment size and mobility (bedrock, boulders, gravel, sand, clay; bed-load, suspended); channel pattern (straight, meandering, wandering, braided, anastomosing); bedform (planar, ripples, pool-riffle, bars)
  - Hydrology: ephemeral, intermittent, perennial or interrupted
  - Chemistry: oxygen and nutrient concentration
  - Note: channel pattern is strongly controlled by bank strength, which is partly controlled by vegetation; on longer timescales, channel pattern can be regarded as an ecosystem characteristic rather than a driver.
- Lakes and pools — key drivers and abiotic characteristics:
  - Origin: tectonic, volcanic, glacial, karstic, fluvial, artificial
  - Stratification: meromictic (never mixes), monomictic (mixes once a year), dimictic (mixes twice a year), polymictic (often mixes)
  - Trophic status: oligotrophic (nutrient-poor) and eutrophic (nutrient-rich)
  - Salinity: freshwater lakes and salt lakes
  - Permanency: episodic, seasonal and permanent lakes
- Key biotic characteristics: fish, macroinvertebrates and vegetation.
- Wetlands:
  - Definition: ecosystems arising when inundation produces soils dominated by anaerobic processes, forcing biota (particularly rooted plants) to adapt to flooding.
  - Key drivers and abiotic characteristics: morphology (terrain-conforming versus self-emergent); hydrological system (permanence/seasonality of water levels; minerotrophic versus ombrotrophic); trophic status (oligotrophic versus eutrophic); landscape position (riverine, lacustrine, estuarine, palustrine).
  - Key biotic characteristics: dominant vegetation type (for example, bryophytes or graminoids in bogs and fens; graminoids/shrubs/forbs/emergent plants in marsh; trees/shrubs/forbs in swamp; submerged or floating aquatic plants in shallow water).
  - Human activities can significantly drive freshwater and wetland change (for example, river fragmentation with dams, draining of wetlands).

### Marine ecosystems — drivers and characteristics
- Marine ecosystems comprise all saltwater ecosystems connected to the world’s oceans, including coastal transitional and intertidal ecosystems (estuaries, deltas, coastal salt marshes and other shorelines).
- Bathymetry (marine equivalent of topography) measures depths and shapes from coastal landscapes to the deep ocean; benthic refers to ocean-floor-associated habitats/organisms, pelagic refers to water-column habitats/organisms.
- Key drivers of marine ecosystems:
  - Bathymetric profile: depth determines exposure to air/wind, precipitation, currents, light and nutrients; zones include intertidal/littoral, photic, disphotic and aphotic (continental shelf photic zone supports corals, seagrasses and kelp; deeper abyssal plain is aphotic).
  - Climate — four aspects:
    - Wind generating surface currents and waves, affecting mixed layer depth and coastal upwelling.
    - pH: ocean average is approximately 8; decreases (ocean acidification) from increased atmospheric CO2 can negatively impact biota such as corals and shellfish.
    - Temperature: influenced by atmospheric warming; determines tolerance and distribution of marine biota; freshwater inputs from melting glaciers also affect marine ecosystems.
    - Precipitation: influences freshwater flow into coastal/marine systems, affecting salinity and density.
  - Lithology: underlying rock material determines ocean-floor substrate (rock, sand, mud, biogenic materials) shaping marine habitats.
  - Ocean circulation patterns: transport heat, nutrients and oxygen; thermohaline circulation moves surface waters deep; equatorial currents produce productive upwelling areas; local bathymetric effects (for example, seamounts) create productive upwelling zones.
  - Salinity differences: estuarine (mix of salt- and freshwater) versus open ocean (saltwater) determine resident biota.
  - Stratification: temperature, salinity and density-driven layering (surface mixed layer is turbulent and relatively uniform); stratification varies seasonally and geographically and separates nutrient-poor surface waters from nutrient-rich deeper waters.
  - Human activities: direct effects (harvesting, ecosystem modification, noise, nutrient/litter/invasive species release) and indirect effects (climate impacts altering marine characteristics).
- Key abiotic and biotic characteristics:
  - Biota: pelagic biota (nekton actively propel themselves; plankton passively carried); benthic biota (aphotic coral, sponges, bivalves, seagrasses, kelp, invertebrates, bacteria), including complex three-dimensional structures formed by sessile suspension feeders.
  - Sediment chemical and physical properties: indicate potential to support biota, associated processes, and status as carbon sink.
  - Water column characteristics: water temperature; water quality influenced by natural and anthropogenic inputs (contaminants, nutrients, litter including plastics, sediment, freshwater inputs); impacts on dissolved oxygen, salinity and turbidity; low dissolved oxygen may indicate excess anthropogenic nutrient inputs.
  - Vegetation: coastal and marine vegetation (mangroves, seagrasses, seaweeds) provide habitat and food, contribute to nutrient and gas cycling and coastal protection; forms vary in size, shape and mobility (for example, immobile mangroves versus floating sargassum).

*Source: Appendix A3.1: Ecological concepts underpinning spatial units for ecosystem accounting*

### Appendix A3.2

### Appendix A3.2

### IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology (upper three levels)
- Realms presented: terrestrial (T), freshwater (F), marine (M) and subterranean (S) and six transitional realms.
- Terrestrial (selected EFG level 3 entries):
  - T1 Tropical/subtropical forests
    - T1.1 Tropical-subtropical lowland rainforests
    - T1.2 Tropical-subtropical dry forests and thickets
    - T1.3 Tropical-subtropical montane rainforests
    - T1.4 Tropical heath forests
  - T2 Temperate-boreal forests and woodlands
    - T2.1 Boreal and temperate montane forests and woodlands
    - T2.2 Deciduous temperate forests
    - T2.3 Oceanic cool temperate rainforests
    - T2.4 Warm temperate laurophyll forests
    - T2.5 Temperate pyric humid forests
    - T2.6 Temperate pyric sclerophyll forests and woodlands
  - T3 Shrublands and shrubby woodlands
    - T3.1 Seasonally dry tropical shrublands
    - T3.2 Seasonally dry temperate heaths and shrublands
    - T3.3 Cool temperate heathlands
    - T3.4 Young rocky pavements, lava flows and screes
  - T4 Savannas and grasslands
    - T4.1 Trophic savannas
    - T4.2 Pyric tussock savannas
    - T4.3 Hummock savannas
    - T4.4 Temperate woodlands
    - T4.5 Temperate subhumid grasslands
  - T5 Deserts and semi-deserts
    - T5.1 Semi-desert steppes
    - T5.2 Succulent or thorny deserts and semi-deserts
    - T5.3 Sclerophyll hot deserts and semi-deserts
    - T5.4 Cool deserts and semi-deserts
    - T5.5 Hyper-arid deserts
  - T6 Polar-alpine (cryogenic)
    - T6.1 Ice sheets, glaciers and perennial snowfields
    - T6.2 Polar-alpine cliffs, screes, outcrops and lava flows
    - T6.3 Polar tundra and deserts
    - T6.4 Temperate alpine grasslands and shrublands
    - T6.5 Tropical alpine grasslands and herbfields
  - T7 Intensive land-use systems
    - T7.1 Annual croplands
    - T7.2 Sown pastures and fields
    - T7.3 Plantations
    - T7.4 Urban and industrial ecosystems
    - T7.5 Derived semi-natural pastures and old fields
- Freshwater:
  - F1 Rivers and streams (F1.1–F1.7 listed, e.g., F1.1 Permanent upland streams; F1.7 Large lowland rivers)
  - F2 Lakes (F2.1–F2.10 listed, e.g., F2.1 Large permanent freshwater lakes; F2.10 Subglacial lakes)
  - F3 Artificial wetlands (F3.1–F3.5 listed, e.g., F3.1 Large reservoirs; F3.3 Rice paddies)
- Transitional realms:
  - Terrestrial-freshwater TF1 Palustrine wetlands (TF1.1–TF1.7 listed)
  - Freshwater-marine FM1 Semi-confined transitional waters (FM1.1–FM1.3 listed)
  - Marine-terrestrial MT1 Shorelines (MT 1.1–MT 1.4 listed)
  - Marine-terrestrial MT2 Supralittoral coastal (MT 2.1–MT 2.2 listed)
  - Marine-terrestrial MT3 Anthropogenic shorelines (MT 3.1 listed)
  - Marine-freshwater-terrestrial MFT1 Brackish tidal (MFT1.1–MFT1.3 listed)
- Marine:
  - M1 Marine shelves (M1.1–M1.10 listed, e.g., M1.1 Seagrass meadows; M1.9 Upwelling zones)
  - M2 Pelagic ocean waters (M2.1–M2.5 listed, e.g., M2.1 Epipelagic ocean waters; M2.5 Sea ice)
  - M3 Deep-sea floors (M3.1–M3.7 listed, e.g., M3.1 Continental and island slopes; M3.7 Chemosynthetic-based ecosystems)
  - M4 Anthropogenic marine systems (M4.1 Submerged artificial structures; M4.2 Marine aquafarms)
- Subterranean:
  - S1 Subterranean lithic (S1.1 Aerobic caves; S1.2 Endolithic systems)
  - S2 Anthropogenic subterranean voids (S2.1 Anthropogenic subterranean voids)
  - Subterranean-freshwater SF1 Subterranean freshwaters (SF1.1 Underground streams and pools; SF1.2 Groundwater ecosystems)
  - Subterranean SF2 Anthropogenic subterranean freshwaters (SF2.1 Water pipes and subterranean canals; SF2.2 Flooded mines and other voids)
  - Subterranean-marine SM1 Subterranean tidal (SM1.1 Anchialine caves; SM1.3 Sea caves)

### Purpose of accounting for ecosystem extent
- A common starting point is organizing information on the extent of different ecosystem types within a country or other EAA and how that extent is changing over time.
- Ecosystem extent:
  - Is the size of an ecosystem asset, usually measured in terms of spatial area but may also be measured in terms of length or volume.
  - Is summarized in an ecosystem extent account.
- Accounting for ecosystem extent is relevant for four reasons:
  - Provides a common basis for discussion of composition and changes in ecosystem types and supports:
    - The derivation of coherent indicators of deforestation, desertification, agricultural conversion, urban expansion and other forms of ecosystem change;
    - The measurement of ecosystem diversity and derivation of indicators of changes in biodiversity;
    - Understanding of locations and configuration of ecosystem types within an EAA when mapped, including fragmentation or proximity of cultivated areas to natural ecosystems.
  - Provides a straightforward entry point for mainstreaming ecological data in economic planning and decision-making; extent accounts offer a common framing through which condition and service-flow data can be presented.
  - Demonstrates accounting’s capability to provide a time-series narrative through opening and closing balances over an accounting period, revealing changes in extent and conversions among ecosystem types.
  - Spatial data used to compile extent accounts provide infrastructure for measuring ecosystem condition and modelling ecosystem services; extent and condition accounts are most informative when viewed jointly.

### Scope of extent accounts
- An ecosystem extent account is compiled for the total area of an EAA and records areas and changes in areas of all ecosystem assets within an EAA, classified by ecosystem type.
- Input data are commonly spatial maps; mapped outputs can be produced where assets of the same ecosystem type are coded equivalently.
- At the national level, the EAA extends to cover all terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems with a boundary set by the country’s border with other countries and its EEZ.
- Compilers may choose a smaller geographical scope (e.g., terrestrial or marine realm, subnational region) or compile accounts for areas outside national jurisdiction (e.g., high seas) for regional or international efforts.
- Complementary extent accounts can be compiled for ecosystem types outside the standard two-dimensional extent account (e.g., subterranean ecosystems and aquifers) and for linear features reflecting a one-dimensional perspective; area associated with linear features will be included in the standard two-dimensional extent accounts following treatments in section 3.3.

### Structure of extent accounts and accounting entries
- Structure (indicative):
  - Measurement units: units of area appropriate for the scale (e.g., hectares or square kilometres).
  - Columns correspond to classes under the selected ecosystem type classification (examples at EFG level 3 based on IUCN GET).
  - No specific limit on number of ecosystem types or level of detail; constraint is that the sum of areas of all ecosystem types must equal the total area of the EAA.
- Accounting entries (definitions to be applied; may not always be possible to record all entries depending on data availability):
  - Opening extent and closing extent: total area of ecosystem assets for a given ecosystem type at the beginning and end of an accounting period, generally one year.
  - Additions to extent (increases in the area of an ecosystem type), where possible separated into:
    - Managed expansions:
      - Increase due to direct human activity in the ecosystem, including unplanned effects of such activity.
      - Examples include conversion of forests to cultivated land and land reclamation work in coastal areas.
      - Human activity may also create new areas of more natural ecosystem types (e.g., reforestation of cultivated areas).
    - Unmanaged expansions:
      - Increase resulting from natural processes, including seeding, sprouting, suckering or layering.
      - Can be influenced by human activity (e.g., expansion of deserts due to climate change) or result from abandonment of land by people.
  - Reductions in extent (decreases in the area of an ecosystem type), where possible separated into:
    - Managed reductions:
      - Decrease due to direct human activity in the ecosystem, including unplanned effects or illegal activity.
      - Examples include deforestation and increases in urban areas.
    - Unmanaged reductions:
      - Decrease associated with natural processes.
      - Can be influenced by human activity (e.g., loss of coral reefs due to climate change) or result from abandonment of land by people.
- All additions and reductions in extent are considered ecosystem conversions and imply a change in ecosystem type.
  - A change in ecosystem condition alone is not sufficient grounds for declaring an ecosystem conversion.
  - Extreme events (e.g., bushfires or hurricanes) with considerable loss need not imply a change of ecosystem type because regeneration commonly follows.
  - Compilers may find it useful to compile ecosystem type change matrices to support measures of managed and unmanaged changes.
- Revisions:
  - Updated input data and/or changed methods may permit reassessment of area sizes; such changes will likely require revision of previous estimates to ensure continuity of time series.
  - No distinct entry for revisions is recorded; individual entries for opening and closing extent and additions and reductions are altered.
  - For analytical and dissemination purposes, it may be appropriate to show the size of revisions by calculating differences between historical and revised accounts for the same accounting period.
- Balancing and total area:
  - Generally, additions to one ecosystem type will be matched by reductions in another ecosystem type.
  - If there is a change in the total area of the EAA, a matching entry is not recorded.
  - Changes in total area due to political factors (e.g., changes following a realignment of borders) should be recorded as managed expansions or reductions for the relevant ecosystem types; these changes do not require revisions to past accounts.
  - The area of an EAA including marine, terrestrial and freshwater realms is unlikely to change significantly over an accounting period; total additions will therefore generally equal total reductions.

*Source: David A. Keith and others, eds. (2020).*

### 4.21 However, changes at the edges of the realms and associated transition areas, par-

### seeaeaea - 4.21 However, changes at the edges of the realms and associated transition areas, par-

### Overview of ecosystem extent accounting and edge dynamics
- Changes at the edges of the realms and associated transition areas, particularly between the marine and terrestrial realms, are likely to occur through coastal erosion, sediment deposition and aggradation and sea level rise or owing to land reclamation work. The associated changes in ecosystem type need to be accounted for. (4.21)
- For the ecosystem extent account presented in table 4.1, there is no requirement that the areas recorded for each ecosystem type be contiguous. Total area of a type (for example, trophic savannas (T4.1)) may be spread across an EAA in distinct ecosystem assets; map presentation will show locations. (4.22)

### Recording ecosystem conversions
- Definition and relevance
  - Ecosystem conversions: changes in ecosystem type for a given location involving a distinct and persistent change in ecological structure, composition and function, reflected in the supply of a different set of ecosystem services. (4.23)
  - Conversions are central to understanding trends in biodiversity and ecosystem service flows. Identification relies on timing of opening extent, length of accounting period, and differences between ecosystem types. (4.24)
- Accounting period and recording guidance
  - Generally, the length of the accounting period is one year, appropriate for recording managed expansions and reductions where change can be determined to have occurred during the accounting period. (4.25)
  - Time frames for unmanaged expansions and reductions may vary considerably; determining the appropriate accounting period for conversion recording may be more difficult. (4.25)
  - When extreme events occur and the ecosystem is expected to recover, record no change in ecosystem type; treat such effects as normal disturbance and represent changes as changes in condition (e.g., greater frequency of fires). Seasonal changes (e.g., sea ice) may be part of normal dynamics; record in subannual extent accounts where appropriate. (4.26)
  - Gradual, long-term changes (e.g., coral reefs due to ocean acidification) may initially be recorded as changes in condition; when structural, compositional and functional change is sufficient to define a different ecosystem type, record as expansion or reduction in the extent account in the accounting period when the change is determined to have taken place. Use measurement of condition and relevant limits and thresholds in assessment. (4.27)
  - Annual reporting provides a clear recording structure despite ecological uncertainty about the precise timing of conversion. (4.28)
- Data limitations and approaches
  - It may not be possible to compile annual extent accounts due to data and resource limitations; lack of annual compilation should not be interpreted as changes being slow or insignificant. Increasing availability of remote sensing and similar data reduces barriers to regular compilation and supports benchmarking and interpolation techniques. (4.29)
- Baselines and long-term comparisons
  - A common aim is to record differences between current composition and a reference or baseline composition (e.g., pre-Industrial Revolution). Extent accounts can compare points in time far apart (example: opening extent for 1970 and closing extent for 2015). (4.30)
- Classification by reasons for change
  - Table structure allows recording managed and unmanaged changes. An extension may classify ecosystem conversions by reasons for change (e.g., urban expansion, salinization, afforestation) depending on data availability and policy interest. (4.31)

### Complementary presentations of ecosystem extent data
- Mapping ecosystem extent
  - Maps of ecosystem extent by ecosystem type across an EAA provide analytical benefits, reveal configuration and fragmentation patterns, and enable time-series analysis of location of changes. Fragmentation and connectivity changes may not be evident in tabular form. (4.32)
- Fragmentation and patch indicators
  - Spatially detailed area data enable supporting indicators relevant to condition: number of occurrences (number of patches), average patch size, and edge length. (4.33)
- Ecosystem type change matrix
  - Use spatially detailed data and compare maps from two periods to compile an ecosystem type change matrix (table 4.2) showing:
    - area of ecosystem types at beginning (opening extent);
    - increases and decreases by conversion from/to other ecosystem types; and
    - area at end of accounting period (closing extent). (4.34)
  - Assumption: total area of the EAA is unchanged between two points in time. If EAA size changes, choose a point in time to define total area; default is the EAA with the smaller area to ensure complete data coverage for both periods. (4.34)
  - Recording convention: unchanged area recorded on diagonal; conversions recorded at intersection of row (original type) and column (new type). Sum of row entries = opening extent; sum of column entries = closing extent. Example: conversion of T1.1 to T7.5 recorded at intersection of row T1.1 and column T7.5. (4.35)
- Example table structure and ecosystem type codes
  - Ecosystem types are listed by EFG level 3 of IUCN GET, with examples such as:
    - T1.1 Tropical-subtropical lowland rainforests
    - T1.2 Tropical-subtropical dry forests and scrubs
    - T1.3 Tropical-subtropical montane rainforests
    - T1.4 Tropical heath forests
    - T2.1 Boreal and temperate high montane forests and woodlands
    - T2.2 Deciduous temperate forests
    - T2.6 Temperate pyric sclerophyll forests and woodlands
    - T7.5 Derived semi-natural pastures and old fields
    - F1.1 Permanent upland streams
    - FM1.3 Intermittently closed and open lakes and lagoons
    - M1.1 Seagrass meadows
    - MFT1.3 Coastal saltmarshes and reedbeds
  - The matrix presentation spans terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystem columns and rows. (Table 4.2 and continuation)

### Extent accounts for linear features and subsurface ecosystems
- Linear features
  - Some ecosystem assets are effectively one-dimensional because length far exceeds width (examples: streams, smaller rivers, road verges). Such assets are linear features and should be accounted by recording length of each linear feature as an ecosystem asset, assigned to an ecosystem type for aggregation by linear feature type. Distinguish linear features dominated by produced assets (e.g., roads) from natural features (e.g., streams); classifying using IUCN GET is appropriate. Units of length are used instead of units of area; one-dimensional length cannot be aggregated with two-dimensional area. (4.36–4.37)
  - Narrow linear features may be recorded as having assumed area of zero but remain ecosystem assets with condition and potential to supply services. (4.38)
  - Example presentation (table 4.3) showing mixed 2D and 1D closing balances (units preserved exactly):
    - 2DForest 345
    - Lakes 50
    - 1DRivers 550
    - Streams 200
    - Total 400 250
- Subsurface ecosystems
  - Complementary extent accounts can be compiled for subterranean ecosystems and aquifers, showing number of occurrences, area or footprint and potentially volume. These can be complemented by condition and ecosystem services data. (4.39)

### Linking extent accounts and economic data
- Ownership and management linkage
  - Aim to link ecosystem extent data to economic owners or managers of ecosystem assets, categorized by institutional sector following 2008 SNA classes (non-financial corporations, general government, households) to understand ownership and financing context. Identify areas under common ownership or under control of indigenous peoples where relevant. (4.40)
- Activity-based linkage
  - Data on economic managers or activity types can be classified by ISIC groupings (e.g., agriculture, forestry, water supply) and aligned to SUT structure to understand links between ecosystem types and economic activity and rights of access and use. Distinguish ownership from type of activity because the same ecosystem type may be linked to different ownership contexts and uses. (4.41–4.42)
- Presentation and analytical uses
  - Tables linking ecosystem types and economic units (table 4.4) cross-classify ecosystem types (EFG level 3) by types of economic units (production/management perspective), including industrial categories and alternative institutional sector categories. Maintain extent data classified by economic use and ownership as distinct data layers and cross-tabulate or map as required. (4.43)
  - Linking extent to economic units is important for policy design and implementation since outcomes for ecosystem types are influenced by characteristics of owning or managing economic units; especially relevant for terrestrial ecosystems and contexts like marine spatial planning. (4.44)
  - Structural links between ecosystem assets and economic units provide the basis for linking economic units to other ecosystem accounts, notably ecosystem services flow accounts. (4.45)

*International Monetary Fund. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (excerpts, section 4.21–4.45).*

### Chapter 5

### Chapter 5 Accounting for ecosystem condition

### 5.1 Introduction — Measurement focus in accounting for ecosystem condition
- Ecosystem condition accounts organize biophysical information on the condition of different ecosystem assets and ecosystem types within an EAA and provide a structured approach to recording and aggregating data describing the characteristics of ecosystem assets and how they have changed (5.1; 5.1.1).
- Ecosystem condition is defined as the quality of an ecosystem measured in terms of its abiotic and biotic characteristics and is assessed with respect to composition, structure and function, which underpin ecosystem integrity and support capacity to supply ecosystem services on an ongoing basis (5.2).
- Measures of ecosystem condition:
  - May reflect multiple values and be undertaken across a range of temporal and spatial scales (5.2).
  - Are of significant interest for environmental policy and decision-making focused on identifying ecosystems of concern and protecting, maintaining and restoring their condition (5.3).
- Relationship to monitoring systems and climate:
  - Condition accounts complement environmental monitoring systems by using and synthesizing their data (e.g., biodiversity, water quality, soil properties) rather than replacing them, and regular production of condition accounts can help systematize and strengthen monitoring systems (5.4).
  - Condition accounts are not intended to directly assess climate patterns, although climate variables (e.g., temperature, precipitation) can be relevant to local ecosystem condition and analysis of climate patterns can support measurement of ecosystem condition (5.5).
- Accounting rationale:
  - Recording condition is important because ecosystem assets typically do not have a market price and therefore condition recording in physical terms completes the accounting picture (5.6).
  - A primary benefit of condition accounts is alignment with other ecosystem data (extent, services) using a common understanding of size, composition, function, location and ecosystem types to provide more comprehensive insight than individual datasets (5.7).

### 5.1.2 Ecological concepts underpinning measurement of ecosystem condition
- Conceptual foundations:
  - SEEA EA’s concept of ecosystem condition is based on long-standing ecological knowledge and relates to overlapping scientific and legislative terms; differences reflect development by different research communities for different ecosystem types (5.8).
  - Condition is often measured by similarity to or distance from a reference state (minimally impacted or historical) and described through combinations of physical, chemical and biological indicators; terms such as “naturalness”, “intactness” and “hemeroby” are used in this context (5.9).
- Ecosystem integrity and resilience:
  - Ecosystem integrity implies the state of being unimpaired, complete or undivided and is defined as the ecosystem’s capacity to maintain its characteristic composition, structure, functioning and self-organization over time within a natural range of variability (Pimentel and Edwards, 2000) (5.10).
  - High integrity/condition ecosystems are typically more resilient (able to recover from disturbances or adapt) (Holling, 1973) (5.10).
  - Resilience varies by ecosystem: some dynamic systems (shoreline systems or estuaries) are adapted to absorb or recover from disturbances, while fragile ecosystems (e.g., sphagnum bogs, alpine herb fields) may be in good condition but have low resilience and can quickly collapse under light pressure (5.11).
- Role of biodiversity:
  - Biodiversity (diversity within and between species and of ecosystems) contributes to composition, structure and function and is integral to measuring condition; commonly used biodiversity metrics include species abundance, species richness and species-based indices (5.12).
  - Functional diversity supports ecosystem function, and fine-scale diversity contributes to within-ecosystem biodiversity (5.12).
- Relationship with ecosystem services and capacity:
  - Ecosystem condition and ecosystem services are linked but the relationship varies among services and is often not linear; better condition can support greater quantity and quality of many services, supporting sustainable management (Smith and others, 2017) (5.13).
  - The relationship between condition and service provision is central to the concept of ecosystem capacity (see chap. 6) (5.13).
- Scope of measures:
  - Measures of ecosystem condition are more comprehensive and integrative than measures of capacity to supply specific services and should include characteristics beyond those relevant only to final ecosystem services used by humans (5.14).
- Scientific and policy integration:
  - SEEA EA provides a scientific and statistical foundation for defining condition and implementing condition accounts using commonly applied variables and indicators, encompassing both conservation and sustainable use of ecosystem services (5.15).

### 5.1.3 General approach to compiling ecosystem condition accounts
- Three-stage approach:
  - SEEA EA uses a three-stage approach to accounting for ecosystem condition; moving from one stage to the next requires building data and using additional assumptions (5.16). Outputs at each stage are relevant for policy- and decision-making (5.16).
  - Stage 1: ecosystem condition accounts presenting data on condition variables (5.17).
  - Stage 2: ecosystem condition accounts presenting condition indicators (5.17).
  - Stage 3 (optional): derivation of composite indices and application of aggregation approaches to obtain overall measures of ecosystem condition across multiple ecosystem types and indicators (5.17).
- Interpretation and aggregation:
  - Condition of an ecosystem asset is interpreted as an ensemble of multiple relevant characteristics measured by sets of variables and indicators; individual indicators can be aggregated into composite indices that synthesize integrity, health or naturalness (5.18).
  - Condition accounts record state and functioning of ecosystem assets within an EAA using relevant variables and indicators that reflect changes over time between opening and closing points of accounting periods; accounts are compiled in biophysical terms and aggregated across assets of the same ecosystem type (5.19).
- Practical compilation:
  - Direct field measurement for every asset is often impractical; condition accounts commonly use remote sensing, modelling and other techniques in combination with available direct field measures (5.19).
  - Structure of accounts depends on selected characteristics, data availability, uses and policy applications; accounts are commonly compiled by ecosystem type because types have distinct characteristics (5.20).
  - Some characteristics (e.g., species richness, functional diversity) are relevant across ecosystem types and some characteristics are relevant for combinations of ecosystem types within a landscape or seascape (5.20).
- Spatial explicitness and biodiversity aggregation issues:
  - The approach is spatially explicit; aggregate measures for an ecosystem type within an EAA reflect an average condition of constituent assets and are appropriate for many policy contexts (5.21).
  - For aggregate biodiversity measures, incorporate characteristics not attributable to individual assets (e.g., total number of species across an EAA — gamma diversity) into aggregate biodiversity measures for an EAA (5.21).
- Science vs policy trade-offs:
  - Scientists aim to capture ecosystem complexity while policymakers often need headline indicators compatible with economic, social and political indicators; accounting demonstrates connections between these perspectives and supports use of variables, indicators and indices in decision-making (5.22).

### 5.2 Defining and selecting ecosystem condition characteristics and variables
- Stage 1 focus:
  - First stage involves setting the measurement focus and defining/selecting ecosystem characteristics and associated variables; this underpins stage 2 (condition indicators) and optional stage 3 (aggregate measures) (5.23).
- Spatial units and data recording:
  - Primary spatial units are ecosystem assets expected to be delineated to be reasonably homogeneous with respect to main characteristics; condition variables are ideally recorded for each ecosystem asset to ensure reliability and transparency (5.24).
  - Where data are available, measures of ecosystem condition may be mapped to show variation across assets (5.24).
- Scope and presentation of accounts:
  - Conceptually possible to compile accounts for individual assets, but SEEA EA’s measurement objective is to provide information on changes in ecosystem-related stocks and flows in relatively large and diverse areas and not to represent every individual asset in tabular form (5.25).
  - Accounts include entries for opening and closing condition (observations at beginning and end of accounting period) and can incorporate more complete time series if required (with likely alternative table configurations) (5.26).
  - Accounts should present additional information (e.g., measurement units and reference levels) documenting transformation from raw data to high-level indices (5.26).
  - Examples in the chapter show entries for a single ecosystem type; extending to multiple types follows the same structure but with different variables and indicators per type (5.27).

### 5.2.2 Ecosystem condition characteristics
- Definition and examples:
  - Ecosystem characteristics are system properties and major abiotic and biotic components (water, soil, topography, vegetation, biomass, habitat and species); examples include vegetation type, water quality and soil type (5.28).
  - Characteristics encompass components, structure, processes and functionality and may be stable (e.g., soil type, topography) or dynamic (e.g., precipitation, water quality, species abundance) (5.28).
- Selection and ancillary data:
  - Not all ecosystem characteristics need to be integrated into condition accounts; focus is generally on characteristics that can show directional change over consecutive accounting periods in a scientifically sound manner (5.29).
  - Stable characteristics and ancillary data (used in compilation but not necessarily reported) should also be collected; ancillary data include demographics, emissions of pollutants, agricultural management practices (fertilizer application, irrigation), natural resource management types and expenditure on ecosystem restoration (Czúcz and others, 2021b) (5.29).
  - Appropriate selection of relevant characteristics and variables is detailed in section 5.2.4 (5.29).

### 5.2.3 Ecosystem condition typology
- SEEA ecosystem condition typology (ECT):
  - The ECT is a hierarchical typology for organizing data on ecosystem condition characteristics, presenting meaningful ordering and coverage for variable and indicator selection and providing structure for aggregation (5.30).
  - The typology establishes a common language to support increased comparability among different ecosystem condition studies (5.30).
- Design principles and applicability:
  - The ECT balances statistical requirements with ecological meaningfulness in the context of structure, function and composition (5.31).
  - The ECT is designed to be universal and relevant for all realms and biomes while supporting direct reference to ecosystem-specific metrics at lower levels (5.31).
  - Section 5.5.2 provides an indicative set of ecosystem condition variables for biomes structured according to the ECT; further detail on ECT classes and relationships to other classification systems is provided in Czúcz and others (2021a) (5.31).

*Italic: Source — Chapter 5, seeaeaea - Chapter 5 (seeaeaea - Chapter 5 PDF).*

### 5.32 The ECT has six classes, as listed in table 5.1. This typology can be applied for

### seeaeaea - 5.32 The ECT has six classes, as listed in table 5.1. This typology can be applied for

### ECT typology and purpose
- The ECT has six classes (as listed in table 5.1) organized into three groups: Group A (Abiotic), Group B (Biotic), and Group C (Landscape-level).
- Purpose: create a reporting and aggregation structure for ecosystem characteristics and ecosystem condition variables and indicators, aiming for exhaustive and mutually exclusive groups and classes.
- Interpretation rule: apply the specific class interpretations provided to avoid ambiguity and ensure mutual exclusivity.

### Group A — Abiotic ecosystem characteristics
- Class A1. Physical state characteristics:
  - Includes physical descriptors of abiotic components (soil, water, air).
  - Examples: physical stocks such as water table level, impervious surfaces; variables related to extreme temperature, rainfall or drought events linked to climate change.
- Class A2. Chemical state characteristics:
  - Includes descriptors of chemical composition of abiotic ecosystem components.
  - Focus typically on accumulated stocks of pollutants or nutrients in soil, water or air.
  - Indicators should describe state (“stocks”) rather than flows (emissions).

### Group B — Biotic ecosystem characteristics
- Class B1. Compositional state characteristics:
  - Describes composition/diversity of ecological communities at a given location and time.
  - Examples: presence/abundance of species or taxonomic groups, local distribution (presence), diversity of species groups.
  - Note: characteristics concerning specific functional groups (e.g. pollinators, nitrogen fixers) should be considered functional state characteristics (B3). Very large guild abundances (e.g. trees, phytoplankton) are structural (B2).
- Class B2. Structural state characteristics:
  - Focused on vegetation and biomass; amount of local living and dead plant matter.
  - Includes vegetation density and cover for whole ecosystem or compartments (canopy, belowground biomass, litter).
  - Marine/freshwater examples: phytoplankton abundance, seagrass biomass.
  - Overlap with compositional characteristics can occur (e.g. foundation species); where overlap occurs, register in structural class.
- Class B3. Functional state characteristics:
  - Related to ecosystem processes (e.g. frequency, intensity) not covered by other ECT classes.
  - May include state of functional species groups (producers, pollinators, nitrogen fixers, predators, decomposers).
  - Guidance: avoid placing functional characteristics here if they can be readily included in another class.

### Group C — Landscape-level characteristics
- Class C1. Landscape and seascape characteristics:
  - Metrics describing mosaics of ecosystem types at coarse spatial scales (landscape, seascape).
  - Examples: landscape diversity, connectivity, fragmentation.
  - Metrics can quantify connectivity or proximity to pressures (e.g. intensive agriculture) and influence from other assets (e.g. river network effects).
  - No inherent limit to distance considered so long as it does not fall outside the EAA.

### Key guidance on ecosystem types and ECT applicability
- ECT applies to all ecosystem types.
- Distinction: ecosystem processes primarily naturally driven vs. those directly influenced by intensive human activity (anthropogenic ecosystem types).
- Expect greater similarity among characteristics for natural and semi-natural ecosystem types than for anthropogenic ecosystem types.

### Ecosystem condition variables — definition and selection
- Definition: quantitative metrics describing individual characteristics of an ecosystem asset. Variables are clearly and unambiguously defined with units and measurement instructions (examples: number of bird species, tree coverage (percentage), turbidity (NTUs)).
- Selection priorities:
  - Prioritize variables that reflect a role in ecosystem processes and contribute to whole-ecosystem functioning and their risk of change.
  - Prefer stock variables rather than connected flows (examples of stocks: thickness of soil layer, concentration of pollutants, abundance of invasive species).
  - Functional variables: presence/abundance/diversity of species with traits reflecting interactions (examples: fruit-eating seed dispersers, nectar-eating pollinators, decomposers, canopy emergents).
- Nonlinearity: variables may respond non-linearly to pressures (example: nutrient runoff causing a flip from clear to turbid lake state).
- Selection criteria:
  - Use selection criteria to guide identification; superior variables (e.g. more sensitive to change) should be favored.
  - There are 12 criteria listed in appendix A5.1; the first 10 are decisive determinants for eligibility, the last 2 ensure meaningful representation.
- Parsimony: condition accounts should cover relevant ecological information but parsimoniously (use as few variables as possible).
- Rule of thumb: for each ecosystem type, ideally select at least one variable for each of the six ECT classes.
- Typical indicator set: about 6 to 10 well-selected indicators for a given ecosystem type should provide sufficient information to assess overall condition.
- Recommendation: base variable selection on existing ecological knowledge and monitoring systems with direct involvement of ecologists.

### Ecosystem condition variable account — structure and use
- Account structure (table 5.2): variables grouped by ECT class with fields including Descriptor, Measurement unit, Opening value, Closing value, Change.
- Purpose: provide a structured system for recording data on ecosystem condition and draw clear connections to measures of ecosystem extent and ecosystem service flows organized using same classes.
- Documentation requirements:
  - Define and document variables and metrics thoroughly to enable scientific reproducibility.
  - Documentation should unambiguously link to short names used in variable and indicator accounts and be communicable to users.
- Use cases:
  - Monitor changes over time (e.g. soil pH sensitive to land management).
  - Compare measurements to critical ecological thresholds or political targets (examples: freshwater pH, soil nutrient enrichment thresholds, age structure of fish populations, species richness targets, bathing water quality).
- Neutral recording:
  - Entries are neutral — not compared with a baseline or judged (no high/medium/low implied); focus is monitoring and reporting change.

### Spatial aggregation and representation
- Spatial variability:
  - Each ecosystem asset of a single ecosystem type in an EAA can have different values for the same condition variable.
  - Values recorded in an ecosystem condition variable account should be calculated as the area-weighted arithmetic mean of ecosystem assets belonging to the ecosystem type within the EAA.
  - Other statistical moments (variance, median, minimum, maximum, number or area above a threshold) can also be recorded if useful.
  - Area-weighted averaging yields average values for an ecosystem type within an EAA; changes in asset values between accounting periods change the average.

### Qualitative variables and temporal aggregation
- Qualitative/ordinal variables:
  - Can be used (e.g. species presence or ordinal water quality); account records relative share of classes over entire EAA (example: percentage of ecosystem assets where a species is present).
- Temporal units and aggregation:
  - Common temporal unit: years.
  - Observations collected at different temporal resolutions (seconds/days for air quality; weeks/months/seasons for Earth observation productivity; years or multiple years for land-cover changes, species records).
  - Methods to convert to common reporting year: summing or averaging within a period, linear interpolation between years with observations, smoothing (moving average) for highly dynamic variables.

*Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/manuals-and-guides/2025/english/seeaeaea.pdf*

### 5.57 Care should be taken when variables are added directly to the condition account

### 5.57 Care should be taken when variables are added directly to the condition account

### Care with aggregated variables and spatial scale
- Measurement at the ecosystem type or EAA level does not necessarily reflect the spatial variation of condition across different ecosystem assets.
- Example: the total number of species observed in an ecosystem type within an EAA (gamma diversity) is important for understanding biodiversity but may be less appropriate when quantifying the ecosystem condition of a specific ecosystem type.
- Recommendation: where species richness is used as an ecosystem condition variable, measure local species richness of different ecosystem assets and report average species richness in the compilation of a condition account.
- Practical note: many data are available at an aggregated EAA level (for example, data based on the range or distribution of species or indices such as the Living Planet Index or the Ocean Health Index54). Care is needed to ensure consistency between the spatial scale used in their measurement and the spatial scale used for other variables; ideally, all data should be capable of being attributed to the ecosystem asset level.

### Data sources and statistical frameworks
- A wide array of potential data sources exists at global, national and local levels.
- From a statistical perspective, relevant data may be available within the context of the Framework for the Development of Environmental Statistics (United Nations, 2017) and the associated Basic Set of Environment Statistics (ibid., annex A).

### Deriving ecosystem condition indicators from variables
- Definition: ecosystem condition indicators are rescaled versions of ecosystem condition variables.
- Two-step derivation:
  - Step 1: Transform data values for each variable into values along a common dimensionless scale, with end points representing an upper-scale end point (1 or 100 per cent) and a lower-scale end point (0 or 0 per cent).
  - Note: the upper-scale end point (100 per cent) often corresponds to high values of the underlying condition variable, but the opposite is possible (e.g., low values of a pollution variable reflect a high condition score).
  - Step 2: Convert the transformed data to ecosystem indicators. The simplest conversion uses two reference levels and a linear transformation:
    - I = (V – V_L) / (V_H – V_L),
      where I is the value of the indicator, V is the value of the variable, V_H is the upper (high) reference level and V_L is the lower reference level.
- Additional guidance:
  - Other rescaling functions can be used but must be clearly documented and justified, especially for metrics including both positive and negative numbers.
  - For variables where an increase in variable value reflects a lower condition score, V_H will be lower than V_L (example: pollutant with upper reference level equated to zero).
  - If observed variable values fall outside the reference range (e.g., above the upper reference level), truncate indicator values at 0 (0 per cent) or 1 (100 per cent) where appropriate (Paracchini and others, 2011).
- Purpose of applying reference levels: converts variables from measures of trends to assessments relative to the reference; normalization is required for later aggregation steps to ensure commensurate metrics measured on the same scale using common units (Nardo and others, 2005).
- A set of indicators for a condition account can include common/global indicators in addition to ecosystem-type-specific indicators.

### Reference levels
- Definition: a reference level is the value of a variable at the reference condition against which measured values are compared; the difference between a variable value and its upper reference level represents distance from the reference condition.
- Reference levels are used to rescale variables to derive individual condition indicators and are defined consistently:
  - Across different variables within an ecosystem type.
  - For the same variable across different ecosystem types.
- Typical structure:
  - Upper and lower reference levels reflect limits or end points of the range used in rescaling.
  - Upper reference level: value when the ecosystem is in a reference condition (e.g., the natural state).
  - Lower reference level: value when the ecosystem is in a degraded state (e.g., ecosystem collapse) where processes are below thresholds for maintaining function.
  - One reference level can often be replaced by the natural zero value of the variable (example: zero abundance for a species).
- Reference levels applied to the same variables are likely to differ by ecosystem type (example: NDVI reference levels differ for forest, savanna and grassland).
- Individual reference levels can be set once a reference condition is selected; different methods exist for establishing reference conditions and assigning reference levels (appendix A5.2).
- Different reference levels may be set depending on the purpose of an indicator; multiple indicators may be derived from the same variable within the same ecosystem. For SEEA EA, the reference level should be established in relation to a common reference condition (to measure ecosystem integrity).

### Reference condition
- Definition: the condition against which past, present and future ecosystem condition is compared to measure relative change over time; used for setting upper reference levels of variables reflecting high ecosystem integrity.
- Characteristic: the reference condition corresponds to a state where all condition indicators have a (spatially averaged) value of 1 (100 per cent).
- Principle: reference condition is based on maintaining ecosystem integrity, stability and resilience (over ecological time frames)55.
- Preferred reference: the natural state (ecological state of a natural ecosystem) allowing for dynamic ranges; metrics represent distance from the natural condition irrespective of characteristic, ecosystem type or human-desired outcome.
- Natural reference condition properties:
  - Structure, composition and function dominated by natural ecological and evolutionary processes (food chains, species populations, nutrient and hydrological cycles, self-regeneration).
  - Dynamic equilibriums in response to natural disturbance regimes.
  - Absence of major human modification.
  - Ecosystem at natural reference condition attains maximum ecosystem integrity (Gibbons and others, 2008; Mackey and others, 2015; Palmer and Febria, 2012).
- Rationale for using natural state:
  - Allows recognition of natural-state characteristics and change from the natural state to be reflected in accounts.
  - May not correspond to supply of ecosystem services or policy/management targets but is useful for understanding degree of ecosystem change and assessing environmental policies and conservation objectives.
- Practical caveats:
  - Natural reference condition is preferred and recommended but may not be definable in absolute terms where environment has changed due to human and natural processes.
  - For anthropogenic ecosystems (cropland, pastures, managed forests, urban ecosystems), alternative anthropogenically derived reference conditions characterized by integrity, stability and resilience can be established.
  - Assigning a date as a reference condition is problematic due to variation in human influence over time (settlement, agriculture, hunting, domestication, fire use, land clearing, intensive production).
  - Inconsistent reference conditions across ecosystem types prevent meaningful comparisons and can induce variability from year to year due to ecosystem dynamics.
- Use in international contexts:
  - Developing reference conditions supports international conventions and should be applied consistently across realms, biomes and EFGs.
  - Globally agreed reference conditions are useful for global comparisons (for example, evaluating commitments of individual countries to ecosystem maintenance and restoration), but some globally agreed conditions may incorporate policy target-related elements and not fully reflect the conceptual basis for SEEA EA reference conditions.

### Ecosystem condition indicator account
- Structure: builds on the ecosystem condition variable account by relating each variable to a reference level; each variable is rescaled to a uniform dimensionless scale [0, 1] using the variable’s reference level.
- Purpose:
  - Allows description of trends in condition interpreted relative to an agreed reference condition based on ecosystem integrity.
  - Enables statements about whether a variable indicates high condition (close to reference level) or low condition (distant from reference level).
  - Can be used to monitor and report change in values over time.
- Role in SEEA:
  - The ecosystem condition indicator account is a key output organizing ecological data to report on ecosystem integrity within an EAA across a range of characteristics.
  - Regular reporting using multiple indicators supports discussion of effectiveness of strategies to improve ecosystem condition and changing capacity of ecosystems to supply ecosystem services.
  - There is not a direct linear relationship between changes in ecosystem condition and changes in ecosystem capacity; accounting for condition provides structured data to analyze this relationship alongside flows of ecosystem services (chapter 6).
- Composite indices:
  - Data from the indicator account underpin derivation of composite indices of ecosystem condition, useful for conveying general messages about change.
  - Aggregation of indicators can conceal important information; condition indices are optional in SEEA EA and must be clearly linked to movements in individual indicators (stage two).
  - Hierarchical aggregation:
    - Derive aggregated subindices from indicators, then an aggregated index from subindices.
    - Aggregation schemes should describe handling of missing indicators or subindices.
    - Indices should be scalable across spatial resolutions.
  - Aggregation process requirements:
    - Component indicators must use compatible reference levels from a common reference condition, be normalized to a common scale and direction of change, and be combined to form composite indices.
    - Use of an indicator typology and appropriate aggregation scheme allows derivation of subindices and overall condition indices.
  - General guidance on deriving these measures is available in the literature (e.g., Andreasen and others, 2001; Buckland and others, 2005; Burgass and others, 2017; OECD, 2008; van Strien and others, 2012).

*Source: 5.57–5.81, Accounting for ecosystem condition, System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (seeaeaea - 5.57 Care should be taken when variables are added directly to the condition account).*

### 5.82 The structure of ecosystem condition accounting described in this chapter allows

### seeaeaea - 5.82 The structure of ecosystem condition accounting described in this chapter allows

### Aggregation concepts and options
- Aggregation possible across indicators within the same ECT class, across classes of characteristics in the ECT, or across ecosystem types (paragraphs 5.82–5.85).
- Subindices and indices can be constructed to reflect:
  - Specific typology classes (e.g. structural state of temperate woodlands).
  - Ecosystem types (e.g. an ecosystem condition index for rivers).
- Example aggregation approach (paragraph 5.83):
  - Create a condition index for each ecosystem type.
  - Weight each ecosystem-type index by the area of that ecosystem type within the EAA.
  - Sum weighted ecosystem-type indices for an overall ecosystem condition index.

### Requirements and cautions for aggregation
- Aggregation requires expert opinion in selecting indicator groups and mathematical methods, based on ecological understanding and a clear purpose (5.84).
- Preserve disaggregated data for individual variables or indicators at as high a resolution as possible; aggregation should be the last analysis step (5.84).
- Thematic aggregation:
  - Indicators are dimensionless and share a common scale.
  - Thematic aggregation levels: subindices (typology classes/groups within an ecosystem type); indices (ecosystem type in an EAA); overall indices (multiple ecosystem types in an EAA) (5.85).
  - Thematic aggregation can mask opposing indicator trends (example: forest bird species declining while deadwood increases) and may require additional ecological interpretation (5.86).
- Spatial aggregation:
  - Aggregation across fundamentally different ecosystem types may not be meaningful.
  - Do not aggregate across realms (e.g. marine and terrestrial) or across ecosystem types with different reference conditions; aggregation should be confined to ecosystem types with the same reference condition (5.87).
- Temporal aggregation:
  - Common unit is years, but periodicity can vary (e.g. financial year, growing seasons) depending on purpose (5.88).
- Aggregate indicators are average measures reflecting constituent ecosystem assets (5.89).
- Biodiversity metrics are imperfectly nested across scales; some biodiversity indicators emerge only at broad scales and cannot be summed from smaller parts. Aggregate biodiversity measures may require multi-scale data (5.90).

### Potential aggregation functions and weighting approaches
- Aggregation functions and weights are used in each aggregation operation and, ideally, operations should be commutative (5.91).
- Examples of functions for central tendency (5.92):
  - arithmetic mean
  - geometric mean
  - harmonic mean
  - minimum and maximum operators
  - quantiles and median
- Notes on function selection (5.92):
  - Arithmetic mean is most commonly used.
  - Geometric and harmonic means are more sensitive to low values and skewed distributions; geometric mean often used when variables vary over several orders of magnitude.
  - Minimum/maximum operators or threshold detection approaches consider importance of lowest or highest indicator values.
  - “One-out, all-out” approach: condition index based on the lowest-value indicator (minimum function).
- Weighting considerations (5.93):
  - Select weights based on relative importance of indicators with scientific rationale and ecologist input.
  - Spatial aggregation: area-weighted sums and means are typically appropriate.
  - Thematic aggregation often uses equal weighting but equal importance may not hold across indicators.
  - Non-equal weighting may be appropriate when indicator availability is imbalanced or characteristics play different ecological roles.
  - Relationships between characteristics may be non-linear and thresholds may apply.
- Implementation advice (5.94):
  - Consider landscape context and derivation of representative mean and range in condition.
  - Combinations of functions and weightings may be appropriate for indicators with threshold effects or differing importance.
  - Methods for weighting and normalizing scores can be complex and influence outputs; document assumptions and test applicability across characteristics or ecosystem types.
- Examples in practice (5.95):
  - Human development index: arithmetic means for subindices, geometric mean for overall index.
  - Precautionary one-out, all-out approach used in EU Birds and Habitats Directives, IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, and IUCN Red List of Ecosystems.
  - Further scientific study recommended to evaluate aggregation strategies and handling of measurement uncertainties.

### Presentation of ecosystem condition indices
- Aggregation requires scaling/normalization of indicator values against a single reference condition per ecosystem type so different variables and classes can be compared (5.96).
- Aggregated subindices and indices share the same range and direction as indicators (example range: [0 – 1]) (5.96).
- Two presentation approaches (5.97):
  - Mean values approach: derive a subindex for each class in the ECT from combined indicators; derive an ecosystem condition index from subindices for each ecosystem type.
  - Discretized ranges approach: report areas of each ecosystem type covered by ranges of ecosystem condition relative to the reference condition (e.g. low, medium, high); area values reported as absolute (hectares) or relative (percentage of total area).
- Both approaches have been used in existing condition accounts (Maes and others, 2020) (5.97).
- Caution: do not present a total index across ecosystem types that apply different reference conditions; comparing condition scores across ecosystem types requires care (5.98).

### Numerical examples from stylized tables (as presented in source)
- Table 5.4 (Ecosystem condition indices reported using rescaled indicator values (mean values approach)):
  - SEEA ECT class / Indicators / Ecosystem type / Indicator value / Index value / Descriptor
  - Physical state
    - Indicator 10.50.250.050.0250.013
    - Indicator 20.90.70.050.0450.035
    - Subindex0.070.048
  - Chemical state
    - Indicator 30.6250.50.10.0630.05
    - Total abiotic characteristics0.1330.098
  - Compositional state
    - Indicator 40.940.890.0670.0630.062
    - Indicator 50.750.500.0330.0250. 017
    - Subindex0.0880.079
  - Structural state
    - Indicator 60.50.250.120.060.03
  - Functional state
    - Indicator 710.660.080.080.053
    - Total biotic characteristics0.2280.162
  - Landscape and seascape characteristics
    - Indicator 80.50.20.50.250.1
  - Ecosystem condition indexIndex1.00 . 6110.360

- Table 5.5 (Ecosystem condition indices reported using discretized ranges (area (percentage)) in each range of condition):
  - SEEA ECT class / Indicators / Ecosystem type / Descriptor / Indicator weight / Opening value / Closing value / High / Medium / Low / High / Medium / Low
  - Physical state
    - Indicator 10.0510801054550
    - Indicator 20.0570255602020
    - Subindex4052.57. 532.532.535
  - Chemical state
    - Indicator 30.1304030205030
  - Compositional state
    - Indicator 40.06780155801010
    - Indicator 50.0331000000100
    - Subindex86.610 .13.453.66.739.7
  - Structural state
    - Indicator 60.12303040102070
  - Functional state
    - Indicator 70.0810000503020
  - Landscape and seascape characteristics
    - Indicator 80.5303040202060
  - Ecosystem condition index
    - Index1.042.228.928.925.823.750.5

### Considerations in measurement and variable selection
- Three-stage accounting approach provides a measurement structure, but practical measurement involves multiple considerations (5.99).
- Variable selection must cover relevant ecosystem characteristics per ecosystem type; general principles in section 5.2 and Czúcz and others (2021b) apply (5.100).
- Indicative variable types by ECT class (summary, 5.101):
  - Physical state: changes in water content and soil for terrestrial ecosystems; water clarity for aquatic ecosystems.
  - Chemical state: pH, soil organic carbon content, concentrations of nutrients and pollutants.
  - Compositional state: diversity of taxa (e.g. tree species, birds, reptiles, fish, macroinvertebrates) — other taxa may be used.
  - Structural state: often related to vegetation cover or specific aspects thereof.
  - Functional state: ecosystem characteristics such as productivity or decomposition processes.
- Table 5.7 (not reproduced here) provides an indicative selection of variables for selected biomes and functional groups following IUCN GET and ECT classes (5.101).
- Selection guidance (5.102):
  - Selections are not exhaustive or definitive measurement guidance.
  - Local ecological context should guide variable selection, reference condition determination, and levels.
  - Engage ecologists and specialists with ecosystem-type knowledge in variable selection and reference-condition determination.

*Source: seeaeaea - 5.82 The structure of ecosystem condition accounting described in this chapter allows (PDF chapter).*

### 5.103 Second, the descriptors in the table refer to a mix of variables and data sources.

### seeaeaea - 5.103 Second, the descriptors in the table refer to a mix of variables and data sources.

### Ecosystem condition accounting — illustrative tables and variables
- Table 5.6: Ecosystem condition account (condition indices) for multiple ecosystem types
  - Accounting entries shown: Opening condition value; Change in abiotic ecosystem characteristics (physical and chemical state); Change in biotic ecosystem characteristics (composition, structure and function); Change in landscape/seascape characteristics; Net change in condition; Closing condition value.
  - Stylized ecosystem types listed include: Forests, Lakes, Crop-land, Urban areas, Wetlands, Sea-grass.
- Table 5.7: Examples of ecosystem condition variables for selected ecosystem types
  - Variables are grouped under headings: A1 Physical state; A2 Chemical state; B1 Compositional state; B2 Structural state; B3 Functional state; C1 Landscape/seascape.
  - Ecosystem type codes and example entries (indicative only):
    - T1 Tropical/sub-tropical forests: Soil water availability in the driest quarter; wetness; Soil organic carbon content; leaf and litter nitrogen concentration; Tree species richness; bird species richness; Tree cover density; dominant tree height; number of canopy layers; dead-wood volume; forest age class distribution; density of epiphytes; Dry matter productivity; presence of seed dispersing species (capacity for regeneration); water stress index; Forest area density; landscape diversity; forest connectivity; ratio of edge distance to interior area of forest patches.
    - T2 Temperate-boreal forests and woodlands biome: Vegetation water content (NDWI); Soil organic carbon content; air pollutant concentration; foliar and litter nitrogen concentration; Tree species richness; lichen species richness; bird species richness; Forest floor depth (soil layer thickness); tree cover density; deadwood volume; forest age class distribution; Dry matter productivity; density of trees with hollows for nesting; presence of top predator species (food web functionality); NDVI; water stress index; Forest area density; landscape diversity; forest connectivity.
    - T3 Shrublands and shrubby woodlands: Percentage burned area; soil layer thickness; Soil organic carbon content; soil phosphorus concentration; Bird species richness; Tree cover density; Dry matter productivity; proportion of re-sprouting species after fire (capacity for regeneration); Landscape diversity; shrubland/forest connectivity.
    - T4 Savannas and grasslands: Percentage bare ground; Soil organic carbon content; soil pH; Bird species richness; butterfly species richness; proportion of non-native species; Presence/density of trees/shrubs; Dry matter productivity; abundance of termite mounds; Connectivity of trees; grassland connectivity.
    - T5 Deserts and semi-deserts: Water availability; degree of surface crusting; Soil pH; Reptile species diversity or abundance; Vegetation cover; Density of viable seeds in soil (capacity for regeneration); Spatial distribution of waterholes.
    - T6 Polar-alpine (cryogenic): Percentage bare ground; snow depth; extent of sea ice; Pollutant concentrations; Lichen species richness; Vegetation cover; lichen cover or abundance on rocks; Diversity of habitat types; connectivity of routes for migratory species.
    - T 7.1 Annual croplands: Water-holding capacity; soil bulk density; NDWI; Soil organic carbon content; soil nutrient availability; Bird species richness; Share of organic farming; crop diversity; share of time or area as fallow land; Soil respiration rate (decomposition); gross primary production; Presence/share of semi-natural vegetation fragments (small woody features); landscape diversity (mosaic).
    - T 7.4 Urban and industrial ecosystems: Imperviousness; NO2 concentration; Bird species richness; Share of urban green space; vegetation or tree cover; Average distance of residents to urban green space; landscape diversity (mosaic).
    - TF1 Palustrine wetlands: Wetness; surface water area; water flow; water-holding capacity; duration of water inundation/saturation; Nitrogen concentration; phosphorus concentration; Bird species richness; dragonfly and damselfly species richness; Vegetation cover by native macrophytes; Biological oxygen demand; Landscape diversity; wetland/water connectivity; intensity of surrounding land use within a 50 m buffer area.
    - F1 Rivers and streams: River flow (relative to ecological base flow); permanence of water flow; sediment load; Nitrogen concentration; phosphorus concentration; Macroinvertebrate species richness; Area of riverbanks vegetated; Biological oxygen demand; Share of river flow controlled by barriers; presence of anadromous fish; river system fragmentation.
    - F2 Lakes: Water clarity; water regime (permanence); water flow; sediment load; Nitrogen concentration; phosphorus concentration; chlorophyll a concentration; Fish species richness; Steepness of water temperature depth profile (structure of vertical profile of lake); ratio between biomass of predatory fish and total fish biomass; ratio between zooplankton and phytoplankton; Biological oxygen demand; ratio between productivity and biomass; Connectedness of riparian vegetation within catchment; share of lake shoreline covered with natural vegetation.
    - F3 Artificial wetlands: Water clarity; Nitrogen concentration; phosphorus concentration; Fish species richness; Steepness of water temperature depth profile; frequency and extent of algal blooms; Percentage area available as fish nursery.
    - M1 Marine shelf: Water clarity (turbidity); (micro)plastic concentration; Chlorophyll a concentration; percentage anoxic area; oxygen concentration; pH (or dissolved CO2); Coral species richness; fish species richness; Reef “bleachedness”; kelp/seagrass height, density or cover; live coral cover; Trophic composition number (food web functionality); ratio between fishing mortality and fishing at maximum sustainable yield; biological oxygen demand; Seagrass meadow cover.
    - M2 Pelagic ocean waters: (Micro)plastic concentration; water clarity; Chlorophyll concentration; percentage anoxic area; oxygen concentration; Fish species richness; plankton species richness; Plankton concentration or abundance; Trophic composition number (food web functionality); ratio between fishing mortality and fishing at maximum sustainable yield.
    - M3 Deep-sea floors: Light intensity; sea floor sediment density; Oxygen concentration; Invertebrate species richness; Habitat diversity.
  - Note: The present table is indicative only and is not intended to provide definitive measurement guidance. Ecosystem types are based on IUCN GET (David A. Keith and others, eds., 2020). Variables are grouped following the SEEA ECT. In some cases, the associated ecosystem characteristic is added in parentheses.

### Data sources and measurement considerations
- Selection of variables and indicators requires careful consideration for appropriate interpretation, including directionality; additional guidance on selection and data collection will be developed.
- It should not be assumed that all data used for account compilation are sourced from direct field observations.
  - In practice, many data are sourced from combining field observations with national environmental and statistical data and remote sensing, including satellite data.
- Remote sensing:
  - Detects stock loss due to a change in ecosystem type (e.g. clearing of vegetation).
  - May not detect stock loss due to decline in condition (e.g. loss of understory or weed invasion).
- Preference for indicators of environmental stocks (e.g. thickness of the soil layer, concentration(s) of substances, abundance of species):
  - Such stock indicators can meet selection criteria and be highly appropriate for condition accounting compared with indicators of connected flows (e.g. degradation/depletion rates, fluxes, flows or other indicators of flow intensity).
  - Advantages:
    - Support clear policy messaging on ecosystem degradation (involving a change in those environmental stocks).
    - Highlight, through policy attention, the environmental stocks perceived to be most valuable or most endangered.
  - Measurement challenges remain; where stocks are difficult to measure, measurement of environmental pressures may be appropriate.

### Use of data on environmental pressures
- Environmental pressure defined: a human-induced process that alters the condition of ecosystems.
- When state data are scarce, pressure measures can be a useful surrogate if the relationship between pressure and state is well understood and justified.
- The ECT can host variables that report pressures as alternatives to direct condition variables:
  - Examples: air emissions or pesticide use reported under chemical state; soil sealing or sea level rise substituting physical state variables; data on introductions of invasive alien species reported under compositional state.
- Considerations about pressure vs state indicators:
  - In some cases, little difference exists between a state and a pressure indicator; in other cases, lags exist between pressure evidence and resultant change in state—pressure measures may then be informative.
  - For local pressures (e.g. poor cultivation practices, pollution, invasive species) there is typically an underlying environmental stock that reflects ecosystem response and is gradually affected by the pressure.
  - Indicators of environmental stocks often meet selection criteria better than indicators of flow intensity and can therefore be preferred.
- Specific pressure types:
  - Overharvesting: often linked to environmental stocks (e.g. timber stocks in forests, fish stocks in marine ecosystems). Intensity of management activities aimed at provisioning services has been shown to exert strong influences on supply of a broad range of services.
  - Agricultural expansion: effects may be captured by changes in ecosystem extent depending on intensity; focus of condition measurement should be change in state of the relevant ecosystem type, while pressure measures (e.g. livestock per hectare, rates of fertilizer and pesticide use) can provide important supporting data.
  - Broad pressure indicators (e.g. measures of GHG emissions, demographic changes) provide a broad measure of potential effects but do not provide direct measures of condition for individual ecosystem assets and are therefore not suitable for ecosystem condition accounts; focus should be on assessing effects of broader pressures on local ecosystems.
- Indicators of protection status (e.g. location, area or representativeness of protected areas):
  - Often proposed as proxy measures for condition if no other information is available.
  - Protection can be a rough proxy for reduced pressures but is not inherently related to condition—an ecosystem could be protected and nevertheless be in poor condition.
  - Indicators describing policy interventions or response categories are not considered appropriate condition indicators and should be avoided to prevent confusion and double counting and to preserve the accounts’ ability to assess effects of policy responses.

### Role of biodiversity in ecosystem condition accounts
- Biodiversity definitions: variety of life within species (genetic diversity), between species and between ecosystems; ecosystems are shaped by interactions among species and between species and the non-living environment.
- Overlap and distinction:
  - Overlap is evident mainly in biotic ecosystem characteristics (species composition, ecosystem structure and ecosystem processes) and these are considered essential biodiversity variables.
  - Difference: Ecosystem condition accounts consider physical and chemical quality along with biotic health and often focus on species-related metrics to account for biodiversity.
  - Variables describing between-ecosystems diversity are generally less appropriate to measure condition of a single ecosystem asset and are rarely used for that purpose.
- Appropriate biodiversity metrics for individual ecosystem asset condition:
  - Characteristics of composition, structure and function, and landscape characteristics when attributable to the individual asset; local species diversity indicators are likely to be relevant.
- Spatial and temporal dynamics matters:
  - Different dynamics between individual species and ecosystems mean not all species-based indicators are suitable at all scales.
  - For long-term condition of a single ecosystem, monitoring non-mobile pollution-sensitive species (e.g. lichens) may be more appropriate and cost-effective than observing occasional visiting species.
  - Observations of migrating species may be important for understanding ecosystem importance at broader scales.
- Emergent properties:
  - Some biodiversity metrics (e.g. diversity of ecosystem types within an EAA) should not be attributed to individual ecosystem assets and should be treated as emergent properties.
  - Emergent properties can be incorporated in aggregate measures of biodiversity at ecosystem type and EAA scale using aggregation approaches that consider spatial and process issues.

### Accounting for ecosystem conversions — measurement challenges and rules
- Definition: Ecosystem conversions occur when part or all of an ecosystem asset changes from one ecosystem type to another between the beginning and the end of an accounting period (examples: clearing natural forest for grazing; conversion of natural grassland to cropland; draining wetland for agriculture; creation of hydropower reservoir; natural encroachment after permafrost melt; potential future flooding due to sea level rise).
- Four practical measurement challenges for condition measurement in conversions:
  - (a) Thresholds: In some cases, thresholds for condition indicators are required to identify conversion from one ecosystem type to another; thresholds depend on classification/delineation and specific indicators (e.g. canopy cover threshold to reclassify forest to shrubland or grassland).
  - (b) Temporal persistence: Rules often required specifying a time period during which the change must remain present to distinguish permanent change from temporal variability.
  - (c) Indicator selection: Selection of condition indicators must allow a change in one or more indicators to signal conversion to another ecosystem type (e.g. canopy cover is poor for distinguishing natural forest vs plantation but good for forest vs grassland).
  - (d) Spatial scale of assessment: Level of aggregation of spatial units for reporting within an accounting area matters; metrics for condition indicators relevant to conversions can occur at different scales, from point sources to emergent landscape scales.

*Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/manuals-and-guides/2025/english/seeaeaea.pdf*

### 5.120 These measurement challenges are confronted in the first instance in the com-

### Accounting for ecosystem condition

### Measurement challenges and ecosystem extent accounts (5.120–5.122)
- The compilation of ecosystem extent accounts (chapter 4) records the change in the area of ecosystem types between the opening and closing of the accounting period in gross terms, i.e., both additions and reductions in area are recorded.
- The characteristics and criteria for the delineation of ecosystem types underpin the recording of conversions.
- Maintaining a time series of ecosystem extent accounts:
  - Supports understanding of the relative extent of different ecosystem types.
  - Supports analysis of conversions from natural to anthropogenic ecosystem types.
- Ecosystem condition for converted areas is measured with respect to the ecosystem type present at the end of the accounting period using the relevant characteristics, indicators, and reference levels.
- Implications for interpreting change in condition over time for converted areas:
  - The set of characteristics, indicators, and reference levels for converted areas will differ from those used at the beginning of the period.
  - Significant care should be taken in interpretation.
  - Recommended general approach: converted areas be either excluded from the analysis of change or handled as a distinct type of area in any aggregations.

### Complementary measures and temporal relevance (5.122)
- There is often strong interest in understanding conversions from natural to anthropogenic ecosystem types beyond measures of extent.
- It may be appropriate to provide complementary measures of changes in ecosystem condition for all ecosystem types (both natural and anthropogenic) relative to a natural reference condition.
- This complementary analysis is most relevant where changes have occurred relatively recently, for example, over the past 200 years.

### Relationships among ecosystem condition, capacity, and degradation (5.123–5.124)
- The ecosystem accounting framework intends to record both stocks of ecosystem assets and flows of ecosystem services.
- General conception:
  - Extent and condition of ecosystem assets influence flows of ecosystem services in the current and future periods.
  - Supply and use of ecosystem services can, in some cases, impact ecosystem condition.
- The connection between stocks and flows is encapsulated in the concept of ecosystem capacity.
  - Measurement of ecosystem capacity is related to but different from measurement of ecosystem condition.
  - Section 6.5 provides a longer discussion of ecosystem capacity in the context of ecosystem accounting.
- Ecosystem degradation defined (see sect. 10.2):
  - Ecosystem degradation is the decrease in the value of an ecosystem asset over an accounting period associated with a decline in the condition of the asset during that accounting period.
- Relationships and distinctions:
  - Value of an ecosystem asset is related to future flows of ecosystem services, linking condition, capacity, and degradation.
  - The concepts are not identical; declines in condition do not necessarily imply ecosystem degradation.
  - Appendix A10.1 discusses links between measures of ecosystem condition and ecosystem degradation and other changes in ecosystem asset value.

### Applications of ecosystem condition accounts (5.125–5.130)
- Scales and data:
  - Ecosystem condition accounts can be compiled at regional, national, and international scales.
  - Data components include ecosystem variables, indicators, reference levels, reference conditions, and ecosystem condition indices.
  - Ensuring consistency in terms, definitions, and metrics within the information system and related policies supports effective application.
- Uses of condition accounts:
  - Synthesize information on changes in the state of ecosystem assets over time to inform policy and decision-making across sectors that impact or depend on ecosystems and natural resources (e.g., land-use planning, environmental impact assessment, agricultural planning, authorization processes, ecosystem rehabilitation/restoration programmes).
  - Overall measures (such as an ecosystem condition index) inform national strategic planning.
  - Spatially explicit accounts with detailed characteristics inform landscape-level planning.
- Assessing ecosystem capacity:
  - Variables, indicators, or ancillary information can assess capacity to supply ecosystem services to inform policy on future availability of service flows.
  - Information on future ecosystem service flows may be used for estimating the monetary value of ecosystem assets (chapter 10).
  - Condition accounts can analyse impacts of activities associated with supplying ecosystem services (e.g., timber harvesting) on ecosystem condition.
- Examples and analytical extensions:
  - Quantified indicators and reference levels can operationalize definitions of ecosystem degradation and enhancement (restoration).
  - Indicators could be combined with ecological thresholds (e.g., points of change in ecosystem type) to assess risk of change or degree of resilience.
  - Condition accounts can inform identification of threatened ecosystems.
- Research needs and conceptual links:
  - Assessment of ecosystem capacity depends on complex interrelationships of multiple indicators to determine threshold levels for sustainability.
  - Connecting critical levels of ecosystem capacity back to condition variables with highest influence on specific services is an important area for future research.
  - Such research would support quantification of concepts like “critical natural capital” and “planetary boundaries.”
- Policy relevance:
  - Development of ecosystem condition accounts can make key policy commitments measurable and support policy design and targets at national and international levels.
  - International policies where ecosystem condition accounts apply include measures for land degradation neutrality (LDN) under the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, the Sustainable Development Goals, and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
  - The concept that ecosystem integrity must be promoted within accounting for national emissions reductions in the Paris Agreement demonstrates progress toward a holistic environmental approach; this concept is developed further in a report describing specific mitigation actions.

### Selection criteria for ecosystem characteristics and metrics (Appendix A5.1)
- Conceptual criteria:
  - Intrinsic relevance: characteristics and metrics should reflect the existing scientific understanding of ecosystem integrity.
  - Instrumental relevance: characteristics and metrics should be related to availability of ecosystem services; favour characteristics that exert the strongest influence on highest priority services.
  - Directional meaning: characteristics and metrics need potential for consensual interpretation (clear whether change is favourable or unfavourable for ecosystem integrity).
  - Sensitivity to human influence: characteristics and metrics should be responsive to known socioecological leverage points (key pressures, management options).
  - Framework conformity: characteristics and metrics should be differentiated from other components of the SEEA EA framework.
- Practical criteria:
  - Validity: metrics need to represent the addressed characteristics credibly and without bias.
  - Reliability: metrics need to be accurate, reliable, and reproducible, with potential sources of error explored and documented.
  - Availability: metrics covering the studied spatial and temporal extents with required resolution need to be achievable in terms of resources and time.
  - Simplicity: metrics should be as simple as possible.
  - Compatibility: the same characteristics should be measured with the same (compatible) metrics in different ecosystem types and/or different EAAs (countries).
- Ensemble criteria (for the whole set of variables and indicators):
  - Comprehensiveness: final set of metrics should cover all relevant ecosystem characteristics, providing complementary measures.
  - Parsimony: final set should be free of redundant (correlated) variables.
- Note: Detailed discussion presented in Czúcz and others (2021b).

### Options and methods for establishing reference conditions (Appendix A5.2, A5.4–A5.8, Table A5.2.1)
- Assessment framework (Table A5.2.1) distinguishes natural from anthropogenic ecosystem states and provides four possible reference conditions for each:
  - Natural ecosystems: possible reference conditions are undisturbed or minimally disturbed; historical; least disturbed; contemporary.
    - Examples: primary and old-growth forests (T1, T2); natural grasslands and savannas (T4); natural lakes (F2); wetlands (TF1).
  - Anthropogenic ecosystems: possible reference conditions are historical; least disturbed; contemporary; best attainable.
    - Examples: urban green spaces and croplands (T7); artificial waterbodies (F3); anthropogenic marine systems (M4).
  - For semi-natural or lightly managed ecosystems, any of the four options for anthropogenic ecosystems could be used.
- Choice of reference condition:
  - Depends on many factors and cannot be prescribed; in accounting contexts the reference condition must be explicit and rationale explained.
  - Examples: European dry heathlands may use least disturbed or contemporary references; heavily polluted/drained wetlands may use least disturbed or historical as reference.
  - Cropland reverting to a natural state: choice depends on objective—assess relative to historical or best attainable for cropland use, or undisturbed/minimally disturbed for restoration objectives.
  - Intensively managed ecosystems (active cropland, urban park) could be assessed relative to best attainable or contemporary.
- Eight methods for estimating reference condition (A5.4–A5.8):
  - Methods 1–4 should be considered first to describe and quantify reference condition and to establish upper and lower reference levels of condition variables.
  - Methods 5–7 are alternatives when methods 1–4 cannot be applied or when policy/legislation dictates methods 5 or 6; method 7 can capture indigenous knowledge; method 8 is a combination.
  - Method 1: Reference sites
    - Use pristine or minimally disturbed sites to establish mean and statistical distribution of condition variables.
    - Reference sites can be identified using expert/traditional knowledge, statistics, and artificial intelligence where long-term time series exist.
    - Monitoring reference sites is straightforward for establishing reference conditions and reference levels.
    - Seasonal/annual variability and long-term or irreversible changes (e.g., climate change, invasive species) can be factored in to establish dynamic reference conditions that can be periodically updated.
  - Method 2: Modelled reference conditions
    - Based on predictive empirical models or potential vegetation models to infer conditions in absence of human disturbance where representative reference sites are unavailable.
    - Potential vegetation can be modelled globally and can incorporate scenarios of environmental change.
    - Weaknesses: models usually do not involve all selected condition variables; variables in models often differ from measured variables; establishing reference levels requires assumptions (e.g., on role of megafauna and early humans).
  - Method 3: Statistical approaches based on ambient distributions
    - Least disturbed or best attainable conditions estimated by observing range of values from current monitoring and selecting a reference (e.g., fifth percentile values or highest species richness).
    - Statistical approaches are data-driven, pragmatic, familiar to accountants, and applicable when no reference sites exist.
    - Methods can be applied consistently across variables (e.g., normalization with maximum values).
    - Drawbacks: arbitrary reference condition, spatial inconsistencies from current datasets, strongly shifting baseline, false sense of consistency.
    - Solutions needed to scale condition variables outside available data ranges; variables improving beyond previous upper reference level can cause complications.

*Source: Excerpt from "System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting" (selected sections and appendices).*

### 4. Historical observations and paleo-environmental data. This method uses

### 4. Historical observations and paleo-environmental data. This method uses

### Historical observations and palaeo-environmental data — method description and strengths/weaknesses
- Uses historical observations or palaeontological data to describe a historical reference condition (typically dating from before 1970 when routine environmental monitoring programmes started).
- “Historical observations” refers to species collections in natural history museums, historical manuscripts and books that describe fauna and flora, photo archives, paintings or other materials that can be used to draw inferences related to the presence of species or the prevalence of certain conditions during a certain period in time.
- Paleo-environmental data reconstructs the physical-chemical environment, climate, vegetation and fauna of a certain period using material buried in the soil; data are often collected during archaeological studies.
- Examples of relevant data collections:
  - Seed banks for reconstructing flora.
  - Remains of fish catches near medieval settlements used to reconstruct fish fauna or determine the presence of specific species.
- Benefits:
  - Delivers a common baseline for climate and biodiversity science relevant to supporting more integrated climate-biodiversity policies.
  - Can reveal the magnitude of biodiversity loss.
- Weakness:
  - Not all ecosystem condition variables can be easily inferred from historical data.

### Contemporary data (method A5.9) — description, examples, advantages, disadvantages
- Uses contemporary data to describe a contemporary reference condition (typically dating from after 1970 when routine environmental monitoring programmes started).
- Examples:
  - Under the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, global atmospheric CO2 emissions recorded in 1990 have been used as a reference against which to assess the changes in future GHG emissions.
  - The Living Planet Index uses species data collected in 1970 as a reference for assessing changes.
- Advantages:
  - Straightforward approach to setting a reference condition, similar to statistical approaches that use ambient data distributions (provided that data are available).
- Disadvantages:
  - Choice of year may be considered arbitrary.
  - Reliance on contemporary data can result in a shifting baseline.
  - Appropriate dates differ for different indicators and ecosystem types.
  - If different baseline dates are used in different regions, this creates inconsistencies.
  - Difficulties with scaling condition variables at levels higher than their reference level (e.g., when variables move out of their established range).
  - Method is subject to policy influence and contemporary baselines may diverge greatly from pre-industrial era baselines.

### Prescribed levels (method 6) — approach and limitations
- Prescribed levels of a set of ecosystem condition variables can construct a bottom-up reference condition.
- Examples of prescribed levels:
  - Zero values for emissions or pollutants.
  - A specific number of species.
  - Established sustainability or threshold levels such as critical loads for eutrophication and acidification.
  - Target levels in terms of legislated quality measures (e.g., air and water quality).
- Advantages:
  - Clear and straightforward management applications.
  - Provide a basis for direct policy response.
  - Can reflect preferences for particular uses of ecosystem accounting for social, economic or environmental purposes.
  - Can describe a level quantifying an undesirable state required to define the zero end of the normalized scale (e.g., where the ecosystem is no longer present or functioning).
- Limitations:
  - Not available for all variables.
  - May be subject to policy influence and may change over time.
  - May not be developed consistently for all ecosystem types, variables or countries.

### Expert opinion (method 7) — use and cautions
- Usually consists of a narrative statement of expected reference condition.
- May be expressed semi-quantitatively, but qualitative articulation is most common.
- Caution advised: several inherent weaknesses are associated with using expert opinion as the sole means of establishing reference condition.

### Combination of methods (method 8) — rationale and examples
- Methods may be used singly or in concert for establishing and/or cross-validating reference condition.
- In practice, a single method may be insufficient to describe or quantify reference levels of ecosystem condition variables.
- Example combinations:
  - Reference values of historical conditions (e.g., pre-industrial state) can be determined by modelling potential vegetation (method 2) based on paleoclimatic data (obtained through method 4).
  - Statistical models and tools (e.g., Bayesian networks) can combine statistical distributions (method 3) and expert opinion (method 7).
- Note: Recent advancements in artificial intelligence will further improve methods for inferring and describing a reference condition.

### Table A5.2.2 — summary mapping (verbatim table indicators)
- Natural ecosystems / Anthropogenic ecosystems — Possible reference condition columns: Undisturbed or minimally disturbed condition, Historical condition, Least disturbed condition, Contemporary condition, Best attainable condition.
- Methods for estimating reference conditions mapping (presence indicated in table as reproduced):
  - 1. Reference sites: xxxx (Natural ecosystems)
  - 2. Modelled reference conditions: xxxx (Natural ecosystems)
  - 3. Statistical approaches based on ambient distributions: xx (Natural ecosystems)
  - 4. Historical observations and paleo-environmental data: x (Natural ecosystems)
  - 5. Contemporary data: x (Natural ecosystems)
  - 6. Prescribed levels: x (Natural ecosystems)
  - 7. Expert opinion: xxx (Natural ecosystems)

---

### Section C — Accounting for ecosystem services (overview)
- Broad ambition of SEEA: comprehensively describe the relationship between the environment and the economy.
- Flows of ecosystem services that reflect contributions ecosystems make to benefits used in economic and other human activity are central to this relationship.
- Section C (chapters 6 and 7) presents the approach to accounting for ecosystem services within the ecosystem accounting framework.
- Chapter 6 focuses on definition of ecosystem services and associated concepts for accounting purposes; chapter 7 focuses on recording ecosystem services in physical terms using accounting principles.
- Measurement boundary for ecosystem services is extended to include contributions of ecosystems to non-SNA benefits.
- Emphasis on recording data on the use of ecosystems by economic units and people both directly and indirectly, to understand competing or complementary uses and effects on ecosystem condition and continued supply of services.
- Measurement in monetary terms requires information on physical flows because most ecosystem services are not traded on markets; chapter 9 describes non-market valuation approaches.

### Chapter 6 — Purpose and scope of accounting for ecosystem services
- 6.1 Purpose:
  - Ecosystem services serve as the concept connecting ecosystem assets and the production and consumption activity of businesses, households and governments.
  - Measurement of ecosystem services is central to describing an integrated set of ecosystem accounts.
- 6.2 Background:
  - Since Ecosystems and Human Well-being (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005), research on ecosystem services has increased rapidly over the past 20 years.
  - The presented approach builds on work from TEEB (2010), MAES (Maes and others, 2013), Natural Capital Project, INCA (Vallecillo and others, 2019b), and IPBES (Díaz and others, 2015), among others.
- Importance:
  - Ecosystem services include marketed goods (timber, fish) and non-market services (air filtration, water purification, global climate regulation, recreation).
  - Accounting aims to describe the range, spatial heterogeneity, and local-to-global beneficiaries of ecosystem services and associate these with supplying ecosystems for comparison across ecosystem types.

### Key accounting concepts for ecosystem services (section 6.2 and subsections)
- Definition and recording:
  - Ecosystem services are the contributions of ecosystems to the benefits that are used in economic and other human activity; use incorporates direct physical consumption, passive enjoyment and indirect receipt of services.
  - Ecosystem services are recorded as flows between ecosystem assets and economic units (businesses, governments, households).
  - Flows may be direct physical flows (e.g., fish removed from a marine ecosystem) or indirect receipt (e.g., flood control services).
- Supply versus use:
  - Literature often uses “supply” to mean an ecosystem’s potential/capacity irrespective of use, and “use” to mean actual flow to people.
  - In ecosystem accounting, measures of supply and use are equivalent and equal to the actual flow between the ecosystem asset and people (standard accounting treatment).
  - The concept of ecosystem capacity remains highly relevant and is discussed further in section 6.5.
- Cascade model and linkage to ecosystem structures/processes:
  - Supply of an ecosystem service is associated with ecosystem structure or process or a combination reflecting biological, chemical and physical interactions (Potschin and Haines-Young, 2017).
  - Characteristics can be aggregated into groups of functional outcomes (Schneiders and Müller, 2017).
  - These processes/characteristics are observable and measurable but are not themselves flows of ecosystem services unless connected to users.
  - Alignment between supply and use is a foundational accounting concept (see SEEA Central Framework, sect. 3.2).
  - Recording pertains to total flows over an accounting period (e.g., one year); an entry reflects a total flow per unit of time.
- Joint production and multiple-asset/multiple-user flows:
  - Ecosystem services often contribute to benefits in combination with other inputs (labour, produced capital) — “joint production” contexts.
  - Supply–use relationships may involve multiple ecosystem assets supplying a service (e.g., flood control in a catchment) or one service used by multiple economic units (e.g., air filtration services benefiting households and businesses).
  - Types of benefits and types of users are discussed further in section 6.2.2.

*Source: seeaeaea - 4. Historical observations and paleo-environmental data. This method uses (seeaeaea - 4. Historical observations and paleo-environmental data. This method uses, PDF).*

### 6.15  In  some  cases,  ecosystem  services  will  be  an  indirect  contribution  to  benefits.

### seeaeaea - 6.15  In  some  cases,  ecosystem  services  will  be  an  indirect  contribution  to  benefits.

### Indirect contributions and intermediate services
- Ecosystem services can be indirect contributions to benefits; e.g., "the nursery population services supplied by seagrass meadows are an input to the supply of fish biomass provisioning services, which in turn contribute to the benefit of marketed fish."
- In that example, the nursery population service is treated as intermediate, while the biomass provisioning service is final.
- Final and intermediate ecosystem services are discussed further in section 6.2.3.

### Benefits: definition and framing
- Benefits are "the goods and services that are ultimately used and enjoyed by people and society."
- The SEEA EA use of "benefit" is derived from, but broader than, the SNA definition of an economic benefit (2008 SNA (para. 3.19): "a gain or positive utility arising from an action").
- In ecosystem accounting, "benefit" reflects a gain or positive contribution to well-being arising from the use of ecosystem services.
- The framing follows the cascade model (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2012; Potschin and Haines-Young, 2016) and Boyd and Banzhaf (2007): ecosystem services are "contributions to benefits" rather than "equivalent to benefits" (contrast: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)).
- The IPBES term "nature’s contributions to people" aligns with this contributions framing.
- The SEEA EA focus on contributions suits supply-use accounting principles.
- The term "utility" is used as a conceptual reference point rather than a measurement objective.

### SNA benefits and non-SNA benefits
- SNA benefits:
  - Defined as goods and services included in the production boundary of the SNA.
  - Examples: "all food, water, energy, clothing, shelter and recreation services available for purchase."
  - Ecosystem services contribute as inputs into a joint production process with produced assets and labour.
  - Distinguish inputs involved in supply of ecosystem services (e.g., fertilizers in growing crops) from inputs involved in accessing/using ecosystem services (e.g., vehicles to drive to parks).
  - Aim: isolate and record the ecosystem’s contribution to the benefits received.
- Non-SNA benefits:
  - Goods and services not included in the SNA production boundary.
  - Examples: clean air and flood protection provided by ecosystems.
  - Scope limited to contributions to people and society; excludes contributions of ecosystems to their own longer-term condition and potential to supply services in the future.
  - Benefits associated with maintenance of ecosystem condition are reflected in the ecosystem condition account or via changed flows of ecosystem services recorded when they occur.
- Measurement scope:
  - Flows of ecosystem services must not overlap with flows of goods and services recorded in the SNA (i.e., SNA benefits).
  - All ecosystem services are outside the SNA production boundary in ecosystem accounting.

### Private, common-pool, and public nature of ecosystem services
- Three situations linking private/public nature to benefits:
  - (a) Ecosystem services used by one user where exclusion is feasible (e.g., supply of fodder on private land) — pure private goods: rival and excludable.
  - (b) Ecosystem services used by one user where exclusion is not feasible (e.g., recreation in a public park) — common pool resources: rival and non-excludable.
  - (c) Ecosystem services usable simultaneously by multiple units with exclusion not feasible (e.g., global climate regulation) — pure public goods: non-rival and non-excludable.
- Implication: ecosystem services contributing to public goods can be treated analogously to SNA collective consumption services; relevant for allocation to users (chapter 7) and integration into extended sector accounts (chapter 11).

### Final and intermediate ecosystem services (section 6.2.3)
- Primary focus: measurement of final ecosystem services.
  - Final ecosystem services: those in which the user of the service is an economic unit (businesses, governments, households).
  - Each final ecosystem service represents a flow between an ecosystem asset and an economic unit.
- Rationale for intermediate services:
  - Many ecosystem interconnections (e.g., seagrass nurseries supporting wild fish populations) are relevant to supply of final services but are indirect.
  - SEEA EA allows recording of indirect contributions as intermediate services.
  - Intermediate services: ecosystem services where the user is an ecosystem asset and there is a connection to the supply of final ecosystem services.
- Recording intermediate services:
  - Can be recorded within and between ecosystem assets (e.g., nursery services contributing to fish caught nearby or elsewhere).
  - Allows recording of indirect contributions irrespective of ecosystem asset size.
  - Measurement should focus on observable connections of high analytical or policy interest (examples: wild pollinators supporting crop biomass; trophic layer connections for fish).
  - Ecosystem accounting should remain focused on final services; intermediate entries only for flows clearly connected to a final ecosystem service and of particular management relevance.
  - Not intended to document all ecological processes or intra-/inter-ecosystem flows exhaustively.

### Users and beneficiaries
- Distinction:
  - User: the economic unit with a direct connection to the ecosystem and the counterparty in the interaction with the ecosystem (e.g., a water supply company using water purification services).
  - Beneficiaries: broader set of economic units that receive benefits downstream (e.g., households and businesses receiving distributed water).
  - The set of users is a subset of beneficiaries.
- Recording considerations:
  - Consider location of use relative to location of supplying ecosystem; includes imports and exports of ecosystem services and associated benefits.
  - Mapping flows to users and beneficiaries and recording exports/imports is discussed further in chapter 7.

### Abiotic flows and spatial functions
- SEEA EA distinguishes three contribution types from the environment: (a) ecosystem services; (b) abiotic flows; and (c) spatial functions (table 6.1).
- Key features:
  - Ecosystem services are distinct from abiotic flows; both are contributions from the environment.
  - Ecosystem services are underpinned by ecological characteristics and processes involving biotic and abiotic components; they include predominantly biotic services (e.g., air filtration by forests) and predominantly abiotic services (e.g., coastal protection by sand dunes).
  - Abiotic flows arise from abstraction/extraction of resources; distinguish geophysical sources (climate/atmosphere-related) and geological resources. Depending on location and point of extraction, geological resources may be attributed as flows from ecosystem assets (e.g., sand and gravel) or from deep geological resources.
  - Spatial functions are neither ecosystem services nor abiotic flows; two main types:
    - (a) use of the environment for transportation and movement or as a base for buildings/structures;
    - (b) use of the environment as a sink for pollutants and waste (excluding remediation by ecosystems, which is an ecosystem service).
- Compilation guidance:
  - Compilers are encouraged to record abiotic flows from geophysical sources and geological resources extracted from ecosystem assets together with ecosystem services to enhance joint analysis, especially for water flows.
  - No expectation for compilers to record abiotic flows from deep geological resources or spatial functions.
  - Accounting for abiotic flows should follow SEEA Central Framework advice (e.g., flows of energy, water, mineral and energy resources).
- Pollutants and waste:
  - Ecosystem services flow accounts include entries on mediation of residuals; SEEA Central Framework accounts provide aggregate flow records of such pressures.
  - Effects of pressures on ecosystem condition should be recorded in the ecosystem condition account.
- Use of environment as location for transport/structures is not recorded explicitly in SEEA Central Framework or SEEA EA; relevant information may be in Central Framework land-use accounts.
- Monetary valuation:
  - Monetary value of abiotic flows and spatial functions generally captured in current SNA-based values (e.g., value of resources extracted or market values reflecting land use), except flows related to use of the environment as a sink for pollutants and waste.

### Identifying flows of ecosystem services (logic chain)
- SEEA EA applies a "logic chain" tool to maintain a consistent boundary between ecosystem services and benefits.
- A logic chain frames the sequence: an ecosystem asset supplies an ecosystem service to an economic unit, which uses that ecosystem service as an input to production or consumption activity, leading to an SNA or non-SNA benefit.
- Logic chains can be presented graphically or in tabular form (as in table 6.2).

*Source: seeaeaea - 6.15  In  some  cases,  ecosystem  services  will  be  an  indirect  contribution  to  benefits.*

### 6.42 As shown in table 6.2, each logic chain for a given ecosystem service has a num-

### seeaeaea - 6.42 As shown in table 6.2, each logic chain for a given ecosystem service has a num-

### Logic chain components and guidance (section 6.42 and related bullets)
- Each logic chain for a given ecosystem service comprises these components:
  - (a) the ecosystem service
  - (b) the common ecosystem type or types
  - (c) factors determining supply
  - (d) factors determining use
  - (e) potential physical metrics
  - (f) associated benefit or benefits
  - (g) main users and beneficiaries
- Points highlighted for each component:
  - Ecosystem services: focus on a single ecosystem service, while recognizing possible multiple benefits.
  - Common ecosystem types: services are supplied by ecosystem assets, individually or in combination (example: forest providing air filtration services to a neighbouring town).
  - Factors determining supply: include both ecological and societal factors. Examples:
    - Ecological characteristics: presence of particular species, soil type, pollutant concentrations, soil organic carbon levels.
    - Human inputs where jointly produced (e.g. growing of crops): labour, produced assets (e.g. tractors), intermediate consumption (e.g. fuel, fertilizer).
    - For some regulating services (e.g. air filtration) human factors such as release of air pollutants are relevant to supply.
  - Factors determining use: describe how people and economic units engage with the ecosystem service. Example: for air filtration, the number of people in proximity to the ecosystem is a relevant factor. Without description and quantification of use, no flow of an ecosystem service should be recorded.
  - Intermediate services: where the logic chain concerns an intermediate service, focus on how the receiving ecosystem asset uses the ecosystem service (connection is indirect).
  - Potential physical metrics: a physical metric (possibly a proxy) is needed for measurement and will vary with data availability.
  - Benefits: identification of ecosystem contributions is commonly through observation of benefits (e.g. reduced concentrations of air pollutants leading to improved health and reduced damage to buildings).
  - Main users and beneficiaries: different economic units use services; the same service may be used by different unit types (example: air filtration used by households and businesses).

### Table 6.1 framing of contributions to benefits from the environment (high-level categories)
- Ecosystem services grouped into:
  - Provisioning services
  - Regulating and maintenance services
  - Cultural services
- Abiotic flows and geological resources also noted as flows related to geophysical processes and geological extraction.
- Spatial functions: flows related to use of environment for location/transportation and as a sink for pollutants and waste (excluding remediation recorded as ecosystem services).
- Non-use values: following section 6.3.4, non-use values are not treated as ecosystem services, but data may be recorded under “ecosystem and species appreciation”.

### Table 6.2 — Generic logic chain example: Air filtration services (summary)
- Ecosystem service: Air filtration services
- Common ecosystem types: Forest and woodland
- Factors determining supply:
  - Type and condition of vegetation, especially functional state (e.g. leaf area index) and chemical state (e.g. ambient pollutant concentration)
- Factors determining use:
  - Ecosystem management; location, type and volume of released air pollutants
  - Behavioural responses; location and number of people and buildings affected by pollution
- Potential physical metrics (as in appendix A6.1):
  - Tons of pollutants absorbed, by type of pollutant (e.g. particulate matter less than 10 micrometres in diameter (PM10) or less than 2.5 micrometres in diameter (PM2.5))
- Benefits (ecological and societal):
  - Reduced concentrations of air pollutants resulting in improved health outcomes and reduced damage to buildings (non-SNA benefit)
- Main users and beneficiaries:
  - Households; businesses (through reduced damage to buildings)

### Reference list of selected ecosystem services (sections 6.3 and 6.3.1–6.3.2)
- Purpose and construction:
  - A reference list of selected ecosystem services has been developed for SEEA EA by combining findings from CICES, NESCS Plus, other typologies (e.g. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, TEEB, IPBES) and SEEA EEA revision consultation.
  - Primary criterion for inclusion: the service is regarded as constituting a relevant and important ecosystem service in many countries and contexts.
  - The reference list provides labels and descriptions to clarify measurement scope and focus for ecosystem services and to support consistency of measurement.
- Nature and limitations:
  - The reference list is pragmatic and designed to support accounting rather than being a full classification system.
  - Correspondences to CICES and NESCS and other classifications have been made available as an online supplement to SEEA EA.
  - The reference list is not exhaustive; it includes categories for “other” ecosystem services to allow recording of services not in the list, subject to satisfying the SEEA EA definition and treatments.
  - Where additional services are included in accounts, descriptions and measurements must avoid overlap with services in the reference list to prevent double counting.
- Treatment of final vs intermediate services:
  - The reference list includes services that can be final (used by economic units) or intermediate (used by ecosystem assets). A single regulating or maintenance service may be final or intermediate depending on context.
  - The distinction between final and intermediate is determined by the user of the service, not the service itself.
  - Each ecosystem service flow is recorded separately, allowing context-dependent treatment as final or intermediate.
  - For biomass provisioning services, care is needed to record appropriate inputs and outputs so the net contribution of ecosystem assets is identified; Chapter 7 discusses recording following an SUT approach.
- Classification and presentation principles:
  - The reference list does not distinguish by supplying ecosystem asset type or by nature of use (e.g. households vs business) — that information appears in the SUT where the flow is recorded.
  - SUTs apply existing classifications of ecosystem types (e.g. IUCN GET or equivalent national classification) and of economic units (e.g. ISIC or equivalent national classification).
  - The highest-level structure encompasses three broad categories:
    - Provisioning services: contributions to benefits extracted or harvested from ecosystems.
    - Regulating and maintenance services: services from ecosystems' ability to regulate biological processes and influence climate, hydrological and biochemical cycles.
    - Cultural services: experiential and intangible services related to perceived or actual qualities of ecosystems contributing to cultural benefits.
  - Regulating and maintenance services are grouped roughly under climate, air, soil, water, habitat and species headings.
  - Compilers are encouraged to include as many types of ecosystem services as possible; progressive expansion over time is appropriate given data and resource constraints.

*International Monetary Fund. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (excerpts).*

### 6.54 Notes are provided following table 6.3 to support understanding of the table and

### seeaeaea - 6.54 Notes are provided following table 6.3 to support understanding of the table and

### Notes and scope (paragraphs 6.54–6.55)
- 6.54: Notes are provided following table 6.3 to support understanding of the table and its application. Additional detail on some of these notes is provided in section 6.4 concerning the treatment of selected ecosystem services.
- The label “cultural services” is described as a pragmatic choice, reflecting its long-standing use in the ecosystem services measurement community. It is not meant to imply that culture itself is a service; rather it is a summary label intended to capture the variety of ways in which people connect to, and identify with, nature and the variety of motivations for those connections.
- 6.55: In measuring ecosystem services associated with crops and wood it is most common to measure the biomass that is harvested. The estimated ecosystem contribution (or share) should vary depending on the production context but, if this is not possible, a proxy measure may be used based on the gross biomass harvested.
- 6.55: Alternatively, a range of specific ecosystem services (for example, pollination, local climate regulation and water flow regulation) may be measured that collectively reflect the ecosystem contribution to biomass growth. Under this second approach, the ecosystem service of crop provisioning is not recorded. Where the harvested biomass is recorded as the final ecosystem service, the various specific ecosystem services may be recorded as intermediate services.

### Reference list of selected ecosystem services — Provisioning (selected entries from Table 6.3)
- Biomass provisioning services (category heading).
- Crop provisioning services*: ecosystem contributions to the growth of cultivated plants that are harvested by economic units for various uses, including food and fibre production, fodder and energy. These are final ecosystem services.
- Grazed biomass provisioning services*: ecosystem contributions to the growth of grazed biomass that is an input to the growth of cultivated livestock. These services exclude ecosystem contributions to the growth of crops used to produce fodder for livestock (e.g. hay, soybean meal). These are final ecosystem services but may be intermediate to livestock provisioning services.
- Livestock provisioning services*: ecosystem contributions to the growth of cultivated livestock and livestock products (e.g. meat, milk, eggs, wool, leather) used by economic units. These are final ecosystem services. No distinct livestock provisioning services are to be recorded if grazed biomass provisioning services are recorded as a final ecosystem service.
- Aquaculture provisioning services: ecosystem contributions to the growth of animals and plants (e.g. fish, shellfish, seaweed) in aquaculture facilities that are harvested by economic units for various uses. These are final ecosystem services.
- Wood provisioning services: ecosystem contributions to the growth of trees and other woody biomass both in cultivated (plantation) and in uncultivated production contexts that are harvested by economic units for various uses including timber production and energy. These services, which exclude contributions to non-wood forest products, are final ecosystem services.
- Wild fish and other natural aquatic biomass provisioning services: ecosystem contributions to the growth of fish and other aquatic biomass that are captured in uncultivated production contexts by economic units for various uses, primarily food production. These are final ecosystem services.
- Wild animals, plants and other biomass provisioning services: ecosystem contributions to the growth of wild animals, plants and other biomass that are captured and harvested in uncultivated production contexts by economic units for various uses. Scope includes non-wood forest products (NWFP) and services related to hunting, trapping and bioprospecting activities; excludes wild fish and other natural aquatic biomass. These are final ecosystem services.
- Genetic material services: ecosystem contributions from all biota (including seed, spore or gamete production) that are used by economic units, for example, (a) to develop new animal and plant breeds; (b) in gene synthesis; or (c) in product development directly using genetic material. These are most commonly recorded as ecosystem services intermediate to biomass provisioning.
- Water supply*: water supply services reflect the combined ecosystem contributions of water flow regulation, water purification and other ecosystem services to the supply of water of appropriate quality to users for various purposes, including household consumption. These are final ecosystem services.
- Other provisioning services (category included in table).

### Reference list — Regulating and maintenance (selected entries)
- Global climate regulation services: ecosystem contributions to reducing concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere through the removal (sequestration) of carbon from the atmosphere and the retention (storage) of carbon in ecosystems. These are final ecosystem services.
- Rainfall pattern regulation services (at subcontinental scale): ecosystem contributions of vegetation, in particular forests, to maintaining rainfall patterns through evapotranspiration at the subcontinental scale. These may be final or intermediate ecosystem services.
- Local (micro and meso) climate regulation services: ecosystem contributions to the regulation of ambient atmospheric conditions through vegetation that improve people’s living conditions and support economic production. These may be final or intermediate ecosystem services.
- Air filtration services: ecosystem contributions to the filtering of airborne pollutants through deposition, uptake, fixing and storage by ecosystem components, particularly plants. These are most commonly final ecosystem services.
- Soil quality regulation services: ecosystem contributions to decomposition of organic and inorganic materials and to the fertility and characteristics of soils, e.g. for input to biomass production. These are most commonly recorded as intermediate ecosystem services.
- Soil and sediment retention services and Soil erosion control services: ecosystem contributions, particularly stabilizing effects of vegetation, that reduce the loss of soil (and sediment) and support use of the environment. These may be recorded as final or intermediate ecosystem services.
- Landslide mitigation services: ecosystem contributions, particularly stabilizing effects of vegetation, that mitigate or prevent damage to human health and safety and to buildings and infrastructure from mass movement of soil, rock and snow. These are final ecosystem services.
- Solid waste remediation services: ecosystem contributions to transformation of organic or inorganic substances through microorganisms, algae, plants and animals that mitigate harmful effects. These may be recorded as final or intermediate ecosystem services.
- Water purification services (water quality regulation): ecosystem contributions to restoration and maintenance of chemical condition of surface water and groundwater through breakdown or removal of nutrients and other pollutants. These may be recorded as final or intermediate ecosystem services.
  - Retention and breakdown of nutrients (listed under water purification services).
  - Retention and breakdown of other pollutants (listed under water purification services).
- Water flow regulation services: ecosystem contributions to regulation of river flows and groundwater and lake water tables via absorption, storage and gradual release of water. These may be recorded as final or intermediate ecosystem services.
  - Baseline flow maintenance services: derive from ecosystem ability to absorb, store and gradually release water during dry seasons; may be final or intermediate.
  - Peak flow mitigation services: ecosystem contributions to absorb and store water to mitigate effects of flood and other extreme water-related events; supplied together with river flood mitigation services to provide flood protection. These are final ecosystem services.
  - Flood control services (category).
  - Coastal protection services: ecosystem contributions of linear elements in the seascape (e.g. coral reefs, sand banks, dunes or mangrove ecosystems along the shore) to protecting the shore and mitigating impacts of tidal surges or storms. These are final ecosystem services.
  - River flood mitigation services: ecosystem contributions of riparian vegetation that provide structure and a physical barrier to high water levels and mitigate impacts of floods. Supplied together with peak flow mitigation services. These are final ecosystem services.
- Storm mitigation services: ecosystem contributions of vegetation, including linear elements, in mitigating impacts of windstorms, sandstorms and other storms (other than water-related events). These are final ecosystem services.
- Noise attenuation services: ecosystem contributions to reduction of the impact of noise on people that mitigate harmful or stressful effects. These are most commonly final ecosystem services.
- Pollination services: ecosystem contributions of wild pollinators to fertilization of crops that maintain or increase abundance and/or diversity of other species that economic units use or enjoy. These may be recorded as final or intermediate services.
- Biological control services / Pest control services: ecosystem contributions to reductions in the incidence of species that prevent or reduce effects of pests on biomass production processes or other economic and human activity. These may be recorded as final or intermediate services.
- Disease control services: ecosystem contributions to reductions in the incidence of species that may prevent or reduce effects on human health. These are most commonly final ecosystem services.
- Nursery population and habitat maintenance services: ecosystem contributions necessary for sustaining populations of species that economic units ultimately use or enjoy, either through maintenance of habitats (e.g. for nurseries or migration) or protection of natural gene pools. These are intermediate services and may be inputs to a number of different final ecosystem services including biomass provisioning and recreation-related services.

### Reference list — Cultural services (selected entries)
- Recreation-related services: contributions of ecosystems (through biophysical characteristics and qualities) that enable people to use and enjoy the environment through direct, in situ, physical and experiential interactions. Include services to locals and non-locals (visitors, including tourists). May also be supplied to those engaging in recreational fishing or hunting. These are final ecosystem services.
- Visual amenity services*: ecosystem contributions to local living conditions via biophysical characteristics and qualities that provide sensory benefits, especially visual. Combine with other services (including recreation-related and noise attenuation) to underpin amenity values. These are final ecosystem services.
- Education, scientific and research services: ecosystem contributions that enable people to use the environment through intellectual interactions with it. These are final ecosystem services.
- Spiritual, artistic and symbolic services: ecosystem contributions recognized by people for cultural, historical, aesthetic, sacred or religious significance. These may underpin cultural identity and inspire artistic expression. These are final ecosystem services.
- Other cultural services (category).
- Flows related to non-use values — Ecosystem and species appreciation: concerns the well-being people derive from the existence and preservation of the environment for current and future generations, irrespective of any direct or indirect use.

### Recording, measurement guidance and classification (paragraphs 6.56–6.59)
- 6.56: For livestock, estimation of ecosystem contribution should focus on direct interaction between livestock and ecosystems, primarily pastures. The key final ecosystem service will be grazed biomass; other services (e.g. local climate regulation) may also be relevant as ecosystems provide a bundle of services supporting livestock.
- 6.56: If grazed biomass is used as the measurement approach, no estimates of livestock provisioning services should be recorded. If livestock provisioning services are recorded (e.g. based on weight gain or outputs of milk and eggs), it is essential that an ecosystem contribution be measured because in intensive farming systems there may be very little direct connection with ecosystems.
- 6.57: Services related to water supply (e.g. water flow regulation and water purification) may be measured as distinct and separate final ecosystem services, or measured as a combined ecosystem service using water supply as a proxy measure to reflect the overall ecosystem contribution.
- 6.58: Amenity-related services arise from benefits people obtain from living or working in a specific location. Visual amenity services, recreation-related services and noise attenuation services are considered to contribute to a location’s amenity. Where possible, each should be measured as distinct, but in practice measurement of a combination of amenity-related services may be required.
- 6.59: The reference list descriptions indicate whether an ecosystem service would be expected to be recorded as final or intermediate, recognizing that specific context determines the classification. Generally, except in the context of biomass provisioning, most ecosystem services will be recorded as final ecosystem services. Some contexts may warrant recording intermediate services (e.g. nursery and habitat maintenance supporting recreation-related services) but recording many intermediate services is not expected as standard practice.

### Links between biodiversity and ecosystem services (paragraphs 6.60–6.61)
- 6.60: SEEA EA adopts the Convention on Biological Diversity definition of biodiversity where ecosystem, species and genetic diversity are broad components of biodiversity. Those components are not considered ecosystem services themselves but distinct elements within them can be directly linked to ecosystem services supply. Examples provided:
  - Specific genes (DNA sequences) can serve as a provisioning service option for the pharmaceutical industry.
  - Pollinator species can provide important pollinating services to the agricultural sector.
  - Certain plant species can support development of medicines (a provisioning service).
  - Presence of well-known species (e.g. lions and elephants) can underpin recreation-related services.
  - Ecosystems such as forests and beaches can provide recreational areas.
- 6.61: Interactions between components of biodiversity are essential for cycling energy, nutrients and other materials through the environment. This is fundamental for maintaining ecosystem processes and functions that underpin ecosystem services supply. As biodiversity is lost, ecosystem processes may be impacted: loss of ecosystems alters processes at landscape scale; loss of species and populations removes functional roles (e.g. decomposing, pollinating, dispersing seeds). Consequently, biodiversity loss directly threatens ecosystem processes and the supply of many ecosystem services across multiple scales.

*International Monetary Fund. Not for Redistribution*

### 6.62  Biodiversity  also  plays  a  fundamental  role  in  maintaining  the  ability  of  eco-

### 6.62  Biodiversity also plays a fundamental role in maintaining the ability of ecosystem assets to supply ecosystem services in the future

### Biodiversity, resilience, and option value
- 6.62: Presence of a diversity of organisms (e.g. multiple species including the genetic diversity within them) performing a given function within an ecosystem boosts the ability of that ecosystem asset to maintain functionality and supply ecosystem services because different environmental changes or shocks will affect individual elements of this diversity in different ways.
- 6.62: This ability of ecosystems to tolerate shocks and disturbances while maintaining the same level of functioning is often referred to as ecosystem resilience and may be considered to have an “insurance value”.
- 6.63: Elements of biodiversity that do not provide ecosystem services at present may provide valuable ecosystem services in the future; this role is linked to the concept of “option value”.
- 6.64: Existence of biodiversity and the desire for its ongoing preservation are connected to non-use values including existence and bequest values (see section 6.3.4).
- 6.66: There remains considerable uncertainty about the specifics of relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem services supply, particularly regarding where “tipping points” and boundaries for biodiversity loss may lie in the context of ecosystem services supply; such uncertainty should encourage a precautionary approach to management of biodiversity for sustainable ecosystem services supply.
- 6.67: Increases in biodiversity are not necessarily reflected in increases in flows of individual ecosystem services; for some services (e.g. related to biomass provisioning) increasing service flows may be correlated with declines in biodiversity.
- 6.68: Biodiversity is an emergent property of a set of ecosystem assets and community assemblages; the roles of diversity across ecosystems, species, and genes and across scales should be considered in ecosystem accounting.

### Treatment of non-use values (section 6.3.4)
- 6.69: Use values arise when benefits are revealed through direct personal interaction or indirect use (e.g. regulation of water flows providing flood mitigation); recording use values in SEEA EA is the primary focus.
- 6.70: Non-use values are values people assign to ecosystems irrespective of use; two main types are bequest value and existence value; for accounting purposes both receive the same treatment because the benefit accrues to an individual in the present.
- 6.71: Option value is treated as a type of use value for accounting to the extent it reflects motivation to ensure ecosystems can provide ecosystem services in the future; option values are conceptually associated with measures of ecosystem condition, biodiversity, and expected future flows incorporated in measures of the NPV of ecosystem services.
- 6.72: Non-use values involve no direct or indirect interaction with the environment; consequently, from an accounting perspective, a transaction is not considered to have taken place consistent with the framing used for recording ecosystem services in SEEA EA.
- 6.73: A separate flow—ecosystem and species appreciation—has been included in the ecosystem services reference list to allow recording of data directly associated with non-use values (e.g. presence or abundance of iconic species); monetary estimates of non-use values can be presented in complementary valuations (see chapter 12).

### Treatment of ecosystem disservices (section 6.3.5)
- 6.74–6.76: Ecosystem services recording focuses on positive exchanges that contribute to benefits; outcomes of transactions can be negative for economic units (ecosystem disservices such as pests, disease vectors, presence of flies) but such negative connections are not exchanges of positive quantities and thus are not considered transactions for accounting purposes.
- 6.77: Negative effects may be reflected as reduced flows of ecosystem services; extent of negative effects can be determined by comparing scenarios (e.g. with and without pests) — an analytical step rather than an accounting entry.
- 6.78: Impacts of disease and other effects on human health can be reflected in a loss of human capital and reduced production (e.g. days lost due to poor health); analysis is required to attribute contribution of the ecosystem disservice relative to other factors.
- 6.79: Although direct recording of ecosystem disservices is not allowed, the accounting framework enables analysis of their effects and can be applied to negative environmental externalities (e.g. peatland emissions reducing climate regulation services; health effects from forest fires and smoke shown as loss of human capital).
- 6.80: Welfare effects are not fully incorporated in accounting entries, but account data can underpin assessment of their magnitude; complementary accounting tables can present monetary values of externalities in SUT format for both ecosystem disservices and negative environmental externalities (see chapter 12).

### Treatment of biomass provisioning services (section 6.4.1)
- 6.81: People source and use biomass in many ways for food, fibre and energy; majority is supplied by farmers, foresters and fishers; determining treatment of biomass provisioning services is complicated by diversity of biomass types and harvesting/growing contexts.
- 6.82: Biomass provisioning services are ecosystem contributions to SNA benefits in the form of food, feed, fibre and energy outputs; all biomass provisioning input to subsistence production of agriculture, forestry and fisheries should be included in ecosystem accounts (includes non-wood forest products and backyard gardens).
- 6.83: SEEA EA aligns with SNA distinction between cultivated and natural production processes based on extent of economic unit management or control.
- 6.84: In natural production processes, all harvested biomass is considered the ecosystem contribution; measurement should align with the gross quantity of biomass harvested (the gross natural resource input), different from total stock available or biomass used in subsequent processes; examples: felling residues and discarded catch are part of the ecosystem service flow; services are recorded in the accounting period when harvested or accessed.
- 6.85: In cultivated production processes, joint production occurs where ecosystem role intersects with human inputs; ecosystem contribution occurs up to the point of harvest.
- 6.86–6.87: Cultivated contexts range from high-intensity (e.g. hydroponics) to low-intensity (e.g. lightly managed native forests); multiple benefits can be generated from same activity (e.g. corn for food and energy feedstock); conceptual intent remains measuring the ecosystem contribution though relative contribution varies across contexts.
- 6.88: Under a measurement approach focusing on gross biomass harvested, particularly in high-intensity cultivation, there may be a significant difference between ecosystem contribution and gross biomass harvested due to fertilizers, enhanced varieties, intensified management even while extent of ecosystem asset under use decreases; compilers are encouraged to estimate ecosystem contribution where it may be changing over time.
- 6.89: Measurement challenges exist in identifying all ecosystem inputs or accurately measuring ecosystem contribution across diverse cultivated contexts; where relative contribution cannot be estimated, gross biomass harvested may be used as an adequate proxy for flow of biomass provisioning services in cultivated contexts irrespective of human inputs and intensity.
- 6.90: Regardless of measurement approach, compilers are recommended to provide additional information on cultivated contexts (e.g. gross biomass harvested in intensive vs extensive systems, organic farming), and measure by biomass type and relevant ecosystem characteristics (e.g. soil type, climatic zone) and variables such as soil fertility, soil-water availability and fertilizer use to support estimation of ecosystem contribution.
- 6.91: Under a second measurement approach, each relevant ecosystem service (e.g. pollination) is measured directly so that overall ecosystem contribution to biomass production is reflected appropriately; such specific ecosystem services may also be recorded as intermediate services under the first approach.
- Note 73: Methods have been developed for estimating ecosystem contribution, including use of input-output data sets, agronomic and agricultural production functions and energy/energy-based approaches; an example applies an energy-based ratio to assess ecosystem contribution and separate it from human input.

*Source: System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (excerpt).*

### 6.92 In line with SNA time of recording treatments, ecosystem services in cultivated

### seeaeaea - 6.92 In line with SNA time of recording treatments, ecosystem services in cultivated

### Biomass provisioning in cultivated production (sections 6.92–6.96)
- Ecosystem services in cultivated production contexts are recorded progressively over the life of the biomass (6.92).
- Services associated with production of timber from plantation forests should be recorded progressively as the timber resources grow, in line with recording of growth as a work in progress (6.92).
- Where multiple types of biomass are harvested from a single ecosystem asset over an accounting period (e.g., through cultivation of summer and winter crops), all biomass harvested should be attributed to the same ecosystem asset (6.92).
- Measurement targets:
  - For cultivated plants, ecosystem services are measured in relation to the quantity harvested (e.g., quantities of corn, timber or apples). This flow is recorded as supplied by the relevant ecosystem and used by the economic unit managing the cultivation (e.g., the farmer) (6.93).
  - For cultivated livestock, the measurement target is the extent of the connection between the livestock and relevant ecosystem assets, primarily natural and cultivated pastures (6.94).
- Intensive rearing contexts:
  - If livestock production does not involve a direct connection with an ecosystem (e.g., some forms of intensive chicken, cattle and pig rearing), no ecosystem services should be recorded for the livestock production process itself (6.94).
  - In such cases, ecosystem services are limited to the contribution to production of feed and supplements (e.g., hay, soybean meal, pellets), recorded as crop provisioning services (6.94).
- Recommended focus: measure grazed biomass provisioning services as the primary ecosystem contribution; other contributions (water supply, local climate regulation such as shade or wind protection) may also be incorporated as final ecosystem services and no distinct livestock provisioning services should be recorded (6.95).
- Alternatives and requirements:
  - It is possible to measure livestock provisioning services reflecting weight gain or production of milk and eggs, but in those cases it is essential to estimate an ecosystem contribution, especially for intensive systems with little direct ecosystem connection (6.95).
- Aquaculture extension:
  - The livestock treatment applies by extension to animals raised in aquaculture facilities whose cultivation involves provision of feed inputs, including fish meal—gross biomass harvested from aquaculture should not be used as a proxy for the ecosystem contribution (6.96).
  - Exception: where no feed or other inputs are provided (e.g., farming of oysters), the ecosystem service can be measured using gross biomass harvested (6.96).
  - Where aquaculture is undertaken without a direct connection to a surrounding ecosystem asset, no ecosystem services should be recorded (6.96).

### Other common biomass provisioning issues (section 6.97 and bullets)
- Links to cultural services:
  - Harvesting of biomass in recreational or cultural contexts (e.g., recreational fishing, traditional indigenous harvests): if the harvest is retained for subsequent consumption, the quantity should be included as part of biomass provisioning services; flows of cultural services should be recorded in addition to biomass provisioning services in these instances (6.97).
- Services related to wild fish provisioning:
  - For uncultivated biomass (especially wild fish), attributing service to a specific ecosystem asset may be challenging; conceptually the supply location is where the catch occurs, but multiple ecosystems may be important for growth (6.97).
  - Intermediate services can be recorded to reflect connections between ecosystem assets (e.g., nursery services from seagrass meadows); feasibility depends on data and ecological knowledge (6.97).
- Trade in biomass products:
  - Location of harvest is recorded as the location of both the supply and the use of ecosystem services; there is no international trade in biomass provisioning services to be recorded (6.97).
  - Input-output techniques can trace flows of associated or derivative products to derive ecosystem service footprints (6.97).
- Losses in biomass production:
  - Not all harvested biomass is retained; such non-retained inputs are natural resource residuals (felling residues, discarded catch, harvest losses) (6.97).
  - SNA output focuses on net output sold by the producer; SEEA Central Framework encourages recording flows in gross terms to reflect actual environmental inputs (6.97).
  - Recommendation: quantity of biomass provisioning services should equal the harvest in gross terms, i.e., before harvest losses, felling residues and discarded catch are deducted; residuals represent ecosystem contributions even if not used by economic units (6.97).

### Treatment of water supply (sections 6.98–6.106)
- Measurement boundary: focus on ecosystem contribution to water availability and quality; hydrological cycles largely determine volume but ecosystems affect availability and quality (6.98).
- Ecological inputs to water supply include processes regulating base flows (precipitation, run-off, infiltration, evapotranspiration) and purification processes; multiple ecosystem assets within a catchment (forests, cropland, wetlands, rivers) can be inputs (6.99).
- Key considerations for compiling ecosystem accounts:
  - Distinguish abstraction purposes where water quality is less relevant (cooling, hydroelectric power, desalination) versus purposes where quality is important (domestic consumption) to target ecosystem contributions appropriately (e.g., water purification services) (6.100).
  - If abstracted water does not require suitable quality, record the flow as an abiotic flow equal to the volume abstracted (6.101). Example: collection of rainwater in tanks (6.101).
  - If abstracted water requires suitable quality and ecosystem contributions are involved, ideally measure these contributions directly and record them as final ecosystem services (e.g., water purification and water flow regulation services). When measured directly, actual abstracted water flows should be recorded as abiotic flows equal to the volume abstracted (6.102).
  - If direct contributions cannot be separately recorded, record the volume of water abstracted as a proxy for ecosystem contributions; this flow should be recorded as a final ecosystem service and no entry for abiotic flows should be made for those volumes (6.103).
- Harmonization guidance:
  - All flows of abstracted water should be recorded in ecosystem accounts either as ecosystem services or as abiotic flows to support comparability; recording of surface water and groundwater abstraction should align with SEEA Central Framework (sect. 3.5: Physical flow accounts for water) (6.104).
- Groundwater and marine abstraction:
  - Treatments apply to groundwater (deep and shallow aquifers) (6.105).
  - Water abstracted from marine ecosystems (e.g., for desalination or cooling) should be treated as an abiotic flow (6.105).
- Hydroelectric generation:
  - Water used for hydroelectric power generation is treated as abstracted and considered removed from the environment and entered into the economy despite immediate return; commonly treated as an abiotic flow (6.106).
  - In some contexts, surrounding landscapes may provide ecosystem services supporting hydroelectric generation (e.g., sediment retention); apply the treatments outlined above where relevant (6.106).

### Measurement of global climate regulation services (sections 6.107–6.114)
- Conceptual focus:
  - Ecosystem accounting complements GHG emission measurement by focusing on ecosystems’ role in mitigating climate change through removing and storing carbon from the atmosphere (6.107).
  - Measurement focuses on carbon absorbed by plants and sequestered in ecosystems; ecosystems can also be GHG sources (CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O)) often related to degradation (6.107).
- Recommended accounting approach:
  - Based on comprehensive recording of stocks and changes in stocks of carbon (physical carbon stock account), ideally measuring opening and closing stocks in biomass (above and below ground), debris, soil and sediment across ecosystem types within an EAA, including marine ecosystems (6.108).
  - Changes in carbon stock reflect removals from the atmosphere and losses due to timber harvest, reforestation, conversion of peatlands, decomposition, wildfires, etc. (6.108).
- Scope limitations:
  - Measurement of global climate regulation services is restricted to biocarbon; does not require measurement of fossil fuel deposits, emissions from fossil fuel consumption, or atmospheric accumulation (6.109).
  - Comprehensive accounting of all carbon stocks and flows is recommended to support coherence and broader climate policy discussion (6.109).
- Components of measurement in SEEA EA:
  - Carbon retention: reflects ecosystems’ ability to accumulate and retain carbon stocks (avoided emission). Declines in carbon stock (e.g., conversion from forest to cultivated land) decrease services supplied; increases in stock raise carbon retention services over time (6.110).
  - Carbon retention is quantified by recording the stock of carbon retained in ecosystems at the beginning of the accounting period (opening stock) as a proxy indicator for the flow of the service (6.111).
  - Measurement scope for carbon stock used to derive carbon retention is limited to carbon stored above ground and below ground (including seabed), living and dead biomass in all ecosystems and soil organic carbon; for peatlands and organic carbon-rich soils include carbon stored to a maximum of two metres below the surface (6.112).
  - Exclude inorganic carbon in freshwater, marine and subterranean ecosystems from scope; minimum service for a single ecosystem is zero when stock (measured in this scope) is zero (6.112).
  - Exclude carbon stored in fossil fuel deposits and carbon stored in harvested wood products from being considered ecosystem services; carbon in harvested wood products is not part of ecosystem assets (6.113).
  - Exclude carbon stored in cultivated biological resources with short rotation cycles (e.g., crops, livestock) from carbon retention measurement (6.113).
  - Carbon sequestration: reflects ecosystems’ ability to remove carbon from the atmosphere expected to be stored for long periods (6.114).
  - Measure sequestration via net ecosystem carbon balance; where net sequestration is zero or negative, level of service supplied is zero (6.114).
  - Carbon sequestration and retention are related but distinct; sequestration in any single year is usually a small fraction of the retained stock (6.114).

*Source: seeaeaea - 6.92 In line with SNA time of recording treatments, ecosystem services in cultivated*

### 6.115  In  principle,  carbon  retention  and  carbon  sequestration  components  should

### seeaeaea - 6.115  In  principle,  carbon  retention  and  carbon  sequestration  components  should

### Carbon retention and sequestration (paras. 6.115)
- Carbon retention and carbon sequestration components should be measured for all ecosystem assets in principle.
- Measurement focus depends on ecosystem context:
  - Stable ecosystems: carbon retention is the primary component.
  - Ecosystems with clear expansion in carbon stock: carbon sequestration may be the focus.
  - Ecosystems at risk of emission (e.g. owing to land-use practices such as draining of peatlands, deforestation, or extreme events such as fires): focus on measuring carbon retention because there may be little carbon sequestration.
- Measurement relevance is high where the stock of carbon is at risk of emission due to human practices or extreme events.

### Identification of cultural services (paras. 6.116–6.125)
- Definition and scope:
  - “Cultural services” is a pragmatic label to encompass experiential and non-material connections between people and ecosystems; it is not meant to imply that culture itself is a service.
  - Cultural services must be defined from a user perspective (i.e., determine the relevant set of benefits).
  - Flows of cultural services reflect ecosystem characteristics and qualities enabling experiential benefits (e.g., recreation).
- Two categories of cultural benefits:
  - (a) Benefits derived from undertaking activity within ecosystems (in situ), including recreation; such benefits include human inputs of time and possibly resources (e.g. equipment, travel) and encompass physical and mental health benefits.
  - (b) Benefits from cultural, spiritual, artistic or similar relational connections to an ecosystem or its biodiversity; may reflect both use and non-use values and can be associated with economic transactions (e.g. donations to non-profit groups).
- Scope exclusions and inclusions:
  - Cultural benefits arising from remote experience of ecosystems (e.g. via television, music, photos) are excluded.
  - Included are benefits used by those who directly experience ecosystem characteristics and qualities (e.g. artists, movie producers), and sometimes require payment for access or rights.
- Working definition for accounting:
  - Cultural services are the perceived or realized qualities of ecosystems whose existence and functioning enable derivation of a range of cultural benefits.
  - Under this definition cultural ecosystem services:
    - (a) reflect the ecosystem contribution in providing places and opportunities for activity;
    - (b) are linked to experiential flows from ecosystems to people; and
    - (c) can contribute to multiple benefits and motivations.
- Included service types (reference to table 6.3 in source):
  - Recreation-related services; visual amenity services; education, scientific and research services; spiritual, artistic and symbolic services.
  - A separate class, ecosystem and species appreciation, is included to allow recording of non-use values.
  - Where a single interaction could reflect multiple services (e.g. a visit to a park), attribution should be based on the primary purpose or motivation.
- Inputs and linkages:
  - Cultural services involve combinations of ecosystem assets, produced assets (e.g. access roads, on-site facilities, walking trails, residential location) and human capital (people’s time, experience, knowledge, physical and perceptive capabilities).
  - Human inputs are generally required to use or access cultural benefits; some human inputs (e.g. restoration or maintenance activities) relate to the supply of cultural benefits.
  - Benefits derived by people working outdoors (e.g. farmers, tour guides, landscapers) may be similar to recreation-related benefits; where such benefits arise they should be included in measures of visual amenity services.
- Economic linkages:
  - Payments by users to ecosystem managers (e.g. national park managers) for access, or payments to businesses supporting activities in ecosystems (e.g. canoe rental), can be connected to entries in standard national accounts.

### Treatment of abiotic and other environmental flows (paras. 6.126–6.137, 6.128–6.136 detailed)
- General principle:
  - Flows between the environment and the economy should be recorded as ecosystem services only if there is a clear contribution of ecological characteristics and processes; otherwise, treat as abiotic flows.
  - Focus on ecological characteristics and processes rather than dominance of biotic or abiotic components when deciding whether a flow is an ecosystem service.
- Guidance for compilers:
  - Return to the definition of ecosystem services (see para. 6.9 in source) when assessing borderline cases.
  - Record abiotic and other environmental flows where relevant for analysis of ecosystem use because trade-offs with ecosystem services commonly exist.
  - In biophysical recording there is no defined aggregate of ecosystem services; inclusion of abiotic flow entries in tables does not impact recorded aggregates.
  - For monetary valuation (chapters 8–10), abiotic flows should not be included in the measurement of the value of ecosystem assets.
  - The value of abiotic and other environmental flows may commonly be measured using observed market prices and the NPV of these flows can be recorded alongside ecosystem asset values in the extended balance sheet (chapter 11).
- Specific treatments where abiotic components dominate but an ecosystem service is recorded (para. 6.129):
  - Air filtration services where pollutants are captured by abiotic components (e.g. bare and rocky surfaces).
  - Coastal protection services provided by unvegetated shingles or sand dunes.
  - Water purification and regulation services from bare but unsealed soil where permeating water is improved in quality and contributes to groundwater supply.
- Energy flows (paras. 6.130–6.131):
  - Flows from non-renewable sources (fossil fuels, uranium) are abiotic flows from geological resources. Peat used as an energy source: extraction recorded as an abiotic flow.
  - Three categories for renewable energy flows:
    - Energy from biomass (roundwood, brushwood, maize for ethanol): involves ecosystem contribution and should be captured as biomass provisioning services.
    - Energy from wind, solar, geothermal, tidal: considered abiotic flows from geophysical sources.
    - Energy from hydroelectric power: generation itself is considered an abiotic flow from geophysical sources; surrounding landscape ecosystem services (e.g. water regulation, soil erosion control) are important final ecosystem services and should be recorded separately.
- Residuals from economic activity (paras. 6.132–6.135):
  - Three cases for residuals released through or generated by economic activity:
    - (a) Residuals actively remediated, broken down or processed through ecological processes (e.g. air filtration, water purification): measure an ecosystem service equivalent to the quantity remediated up to the ecological limit or threshold for the ecosystem asset.
    - (b) Residuals stored in specific areas (e.g. landfill, mining overburden): treated as use of location as a sink (spatial function); no ecosystem service or abiotic flow is recorded.
    - (c) Residuals passed through an ecosystem (e.g. contaminants deposited in sediment or passed to marine environment), including cases where residual release exceeds the ecosystem’s processing limit: storage of pollutants is not considered to reflect an ecosystem contribution; it may be considered a sink service. As in (b), no ecosystem service or abiotic flow recorded unless remediation occurs as in (a).
  - Increasing concentrations of residuals can drive declines in ecosystem condition (e.g. excess nitrogen leading to eutrophication); such declines should be recorded in the condition account and may be reflected in decreases in future flows of ecosystem services.
  - Benefits to polluters arising from ecosystem remediation, dilution or storage are considered spatial functions of ecosystems; only the remediation role performed by an ecosystem asset is recorded as an ecosystem service.
  - Where direct economic benefit accrues to a polluter from ecosystem use (e.g. reduced operating costs), the use of the ecosystem service may be assigned to the polluter, but only the portion of the benefit corresponding to the ecosystem’s remediation capacity should be treated as an ecosystem service. The use of ecosystem services may also be assigned to other economic units that subsequently benefit (e.g. water supply companies).
- Spatial functions and use of environment for activities (paras. 6.136–6.137):
  - Flows related to use of the environment for undertaking economic and other activities are treated as spatial functions within abiotic flows when no ecological processes contribute materially.
  - Benefits derived from land supporting buildings, houses, roads, railways and associated location values are not considered to incorporate ecosystem services; these values should be included in the value of land in the extended balance sheet (chapter 11).
  - Navigation on rivers is a unique case: where water flow regulation contributes, record ecosystem processes as a final ecosystem service.

### Ecosystem capacity — introduction (paras. 6.138–6.140)
- Purpose and interest:
  - Ecosystem capacity concept arises from interest in balance of supply and use of ecosystem services, including:
    - Whether current use exceeds regeneration and absorption limits affecting current generations’ well-being.
    - How actual or potential use of ecosystem services reflects ecosystem asset condition.
    - Relative effects of alternative ecosystem management arrangements on supply and use of ecosystem services.
- Underlying concerns:
  - Potential loss of quantity and quality of ecosystem assets and subsequent impacts on current and future flows of ecosystem services.
  - Local limits on regeneration and overuse as well as broader tipping points (substantive changes in ecosystem type or systemic limits).
- Role in accounting:
  - Ecosystem capacity links measures of ecosystem asset extent and condition with measures of ecosystem service supply and use.
  - Accounts (particularly SUTs) do not require estimates of ecosystem capacity for compilation, but capacity assessment supports interpretation and application of accounting entries.
  - Accounting provides a measurement platform to consider systemic linkages between current and future supply/use of ecosystem services and the state of ecosystem assets.
  - Figure 6.1 (referenced in source) highlights the general relationship that is the focus of ecosystem capacity in SEEA EA.

*Source: System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (excerpt: paras. 6.115–6.140).*

### 6.141 In the context of SEEA EA, ecosystem capacity is the ability of an ecosystem to

### seeaeaea - 6.141 In the context of SEEA EA, ecosystem capacity is the ability of an ecosystem to

### Definition and scope
- Ecosystem capacity: "the ability of an ecosystem to generate an ecosystem service under current ecosystem condition, management and uses, at the highest yield or use level that does not negatively affect the future supply of the same or other ecosystem services from that ecosystem." (6.141)
- The focus of the SEEA EA definition is on capacity to supply a single ecosystem service rather than a bundle of services (6.143).
- Distinctions:
  - Potential supply: ecosystem’s ability to generate an ecosystem service without constraints of current use patterns but still requiring that ecosystem condition be unaffected (6.150).
  - Ecosystem capability (following Hein and (2016)): ability to generate a service under current conditions and type of use irrespective of impacts on the supply of other services (6.150).
- Relationship to ecosystem condition and biodiversity: capacity links to maintenance of ecosystem condition and to concepts such as maintenance of ecosystem functions, option and insurance values (6.142, 6.143).

### Measurement approaches and assumptions
- Two main approaches for applying the definition (6.147–6.148):
  - Static approach: assumes current ecosystem asset context will not change into the future; excludes potential effects of external drivers (e.g. population growth or climate change) on ecological limits (6.147).
  - Dynamic approach: makes assumptions about future changes in the ecosystem asset and/or expected patterns of ecosystem service use, including interactions (trade-offs/synergies) among services (6.148). These assumptions affect ecological limits and capacity measures and are relevant for monetary valuation using an NPV formulation (chapter 10) (6.148).
- Measurement units and temporal framing (6.149):
  - Capacity should be expressed in the same quantification units as the actual flow of the ecosystem service, "most commonly ... in units of rate per year." When aggregating across assets, rates per spatial unit (e.g. hectares, volumes) may be relevant (6.149).
  - Under the static approach, longer-term management or disturbance cycles should be considered (example: "long management cycles (40–100 years) of rotational harvesting of timber") (6.149).
  - Under the dynamic approach, expectations regarding potential changes in longer-term cycles would be considered (6.149).
- Monetary interpretation (6.149):
  - Capacity can be related to the NPV of ecosystem service flows at their sustainability thresholds, using sustainable ecosystem service flow as determined by relevant regeneration and absorption rates. Capacity-based NPVs can be compared with NPVs based on actual expected flows.

### Practical observations and guidance for application
- Unit consistency and presentation:
  - Express capacity in same units as service flow; when presenting measures across ecosystem types, consider rates per spatial unit while noting heterogeneity within assets (6.149).
- Temporal reassessment:
  - If service is used at current capacity without exceeding limits, ecosystem condition should remain stable "all else being equal." Because relevant limits can change over time (e.g. owing to climate change), "measures of capacity should be regularly reassessed" (6.149).
- When to prioritize measuring capacity (6.156–6.157):
  - Focus initially on services whose overuse is most likely to negatively affect ecosystem condition (risk management perspective) (6.156).
  - Capacity is less relevant where there is no or very limited use of a service (example: air filtration services by forests in northern Canada) (6.157).
- Access and use restrictions:
  - Measurement of capacity must take into account restrictions on access or use. Examples: a protected forest where logging is prohibited has zero capacity to supply biomass provisioning services; a beach with no recreational access has zero capacity to supply recreation services (6.158).
- Comparison with actual flows:
  - Compare actual recorded flow in the ecosystem accounts with flow at capacity/threshold level (sustainable flow) to assess sustainability. Flows related to ecosystem capability may not be sustainable (6.151).
- Non-monotonic relationships:
  - Higher ecosystem condition does not always imply higher capacity for all services; for some provisioning services capacity may be higher at condition levels somewhat below the reference condition (6.152).
- Service-type specific points (6.153–6.155):
  - Provisioning services: capacity relates to rates of regeneration possible under current conditions (6.153).
  - Regulating and maintenance services: capacity reflects ecological limits or thresholds (e.g. pollutant remediation limits for water purification; maximum infiltration rates for flood control) (6.154).
  - Cultural services: capacity relevant only for in situ use; measures relate to maximum number of persons able to visit without causing loss of ecosystem condition (6.155).

### Research and development priorities
- SEEA EA recognizes ecosystem capacity as a specific topic in its research and development agenda and notes the need for further research and discussion to refine interpretation and measurement (6.142, 6.159).
- Anticipated advances include:
  - Measurement advances: best practices in setting thresholds for individual services; moving beyond individual services to consider bundles of services (6.159).
  - Conceptual developments: integrating ecosystem capacity into definitions of ecosystem enhancement and degradation (6.159).

*Source: System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (excerpt, paragraphs 6.141–6.159).*

### Appendix A6.1: Initial logic chains for selected ecosystem services

### Appendix A6.1: Initial logic chains for selected ecosystem services

### Overview of covered ecosystem services (selected list)
- Water purification services
  - Common ecosystem types: Many ecosystems, primarily freshwater and marine ecosystems and associated vegetation
  - Factors determining supply: Ecosystem type and condition; composition of microorganisms and algae; chemical state (e.g. nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations)
  - Factors determining use: Location type and volume of released water pollutants; Demand for cleaner water for different uses
  - Potential physical metrics: Tons of pollutants remediated by type of pollutant (nutrients and other pollutants)
  - Benefits: Reduced concentrations of water pollutants providing improved health outcomes and/or reduced water treatment costs (non-SNA benefit)
  - Main users and beneficiaries: Households and businesses

- Water flow regulation services
  - Subtypes: Baseline flow maintenance services; Peak flow mitigation services
  - Common ecosystem types: Terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems within riparian and upstream zones
  - Factors determining supply: Extent and condition of vegetation and soils (e.g. water infiltration rate); rainfall patterns
  - Factors determining use: Ecosystem management; Demand for water supply at different times of the year (baseline flow maintenance); extent of existing produced assets and location of properties (peak flow mitigation)
  - Potential physical metrics: Capacity of reservoirs or alternative forms of storage (cubic metres) otherwise needed to provide same service
  - Benefits: Reduced need for other forms of water storage for human use or for flood defence (non-SNA benefit)
  - Main users and beneficiaries: Households and businesses

- Coastal protection services
  - Common ecosystem types: Shoreline systems
  - Factors determining supply: Extent and condition of vegetation and of other features of coastal margins (e.g. coral reefs, sand banks and dunes); ambient climate factors
  - Factors determining use: Ecosystem management; Extent of existing produced assets (e.g. flood barriers, dykes); location of properties
  - Potential physical metrics: Number of properties in a lower risk category
  - Benefits: Reduced impact or frequency of flood events (non-SNA benefit)
  - Main users and beneficiaries: Property owners and residents – households, business, government

- River flood mitigation services
  - Common ecosystem types: Terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems within riparian zones
  - Factors determining supply: Extent and condition of riparian vegetation; ambient climate factors
  - Factors determining use: Ecosystem management; Extent of existing produced assets (e.g. flood barriers, dykes); location of properties
  - Potential physical metrics: Number of people and buildings in a lower risk category
  - Benefits: Reduced impact of flood events (non-SNA benefit)
  - Main users and beneficiaries: Property owners and residents – households, businesses, government

- Pollination services
  - Common ecosystem types: Many ecosystem types, mainly near cropland areas, but also urban gardens
  - Factors determining supply: Abundance and location of wild pollinators
  - Factors determining use: Ecosystem management; Location of crops benefiting from wild pollination
  - Potential physical metrics: Area of crops pollinated, by type of crop
  - Benefits: Reduced need for alternative forms of pollination, including paid pollinator services (SNA benefit)
  - Main users and beneficiaries: Cropland ecosystems, ultimately agricultural production including household and subsistence production; households

- Nursery population and habitat maintenance services
  - Common ecosystem types: All ecosystems
  - Factors determining supply: Species-level diversity, abundance; condition of ecological communities
  - Factors determining use: Ecosystem management; Demand for biomass, which depends upon nursery and habitat services
  - Potential physical metrics: Size of biomass stocks dependent upon nursery and habitat services
  - Benefits: Continuing supply of ecosystem services (non-SNA benefit)
  - Main users and beneficiaries: All ecosystems; ultimately all sectors of society

- Recreation-related services
  - Common ecosystem types: Many ecosystem types
  - Factors determining supply: Extent and condition; presence of iconic landmarks or species; structural state and landscape/seascape characteristics (e.g. percentage of urban green space, distance to open green space)
  - Factors determining use: Ecosystem management including facilities to support access; Accessibility of recreation sites; location of users; demand for outdoor recreation
  - Potential physical metrics: Number and length (hours) of visits
  - Benefits: Physical and mental health; enjoyment (non-SNA benefit)
  - Main users and beneficiaries: Households; tourism and outdoor leisure service sectors

- Visual amenity services
  - Common ecosystem types: Many ecosystem types
  - Factors determining supply: Landscape setting and condition (e.g. structural state and landscape/seascape characteristics)
  - Factors determining use: Landscape management; Location and design of residential and office buildings; demand for housing in green and blue areas
  - Potential physical metrics: Number of properties with views of natural landscapes or located near green or blue areas
  - Benefits: Higher values of dwellings (SNA benefit); mental health, enjoyment (non-SNA benefit)
  - Main users and beneficiaries: Households

- Education, scientific and research services
  - Common ecosystem types: Many ecosystem types
  - Factors determining supply: Extent and condition; presence of iconic landmarks or species; structural state and landscape/seascape characteristics
  - Factors determining use: Access to ecological sites of interest; Education policies, research priorities and funding
  - Potential physical metrics: Number of visits for educational, scientific and research purposes
  - Benefits: Intellectual development, advancement of knowledge and understanding (non-SNA benefit)
  - Main users and beneficiaries: Educational and research organizations

### Chapter 7 — Accounting for ecosystem services in physical terms: key principles
- Aim and scope
  - Aim: Record flows of ecosystem services over an accounting period in physical units such as cubic metres or tons.
  - Focus: Measurement commonly focuses on ecosystem structures, processes and functions (the supply side), but can also focus on use (e.g. number of visits to a national park).
  - Key focus: Reconciliation of the supply and use of ecosystem services across multiple ecosystem assets and multiple users.

- Uses and applications of physical flow accounts
  - Record and monitor bundles of ecosystem services supplied by different ecosystem types and their users.
  - Support analysis of trade-offs between different ecosystem services for spatial planning and land management.
  - Provide information to delineate areas for specific land uses, including conservation and environmental protection.
  - Spatial data enable finer-scale analysis; for some regulating and maintenance services, spatial measurement is the likely entry point.
  - Physical accounts can demonstrate connection to the SNA production boundary and underpin monetary valuation (see chap. 9).

- Structure of ecosystem services flow accounts (SUT approach)
  - The structure follows SUTs described in the SNA and the SEEA Central Framework; entries can be made in physical and monetary terms.
  - Supply table (table 7.1a): records flows of different ecosystem services supplied by different ecosystem types; should include both final ecosystem services and intermediate services.
  - Use table (table 7.1b): records the use of ecosystem services by economic units (final services) and by other ecosystem assets (intermediate services).
  - Identity principle: Supply of ecosystem services must equal use during an accounting period (application of the supply and use identity).
  - Measurement units: Each ecosystem service is recorded using a measurement unit appropriate to that service; common examples include tons, cubic metres and number of visits.
  - Consistency: The same units used to measure supply must be used to measure use (e.g., tons of PM2.5 absorbed by vegetation).
  - Aggregation limits: Because each service uses its own unit, it is not possible to aggregate across rows to produce meaningful physical aggregates across multiple services.
  - Ecosystem-type assignment: Each ecosystem service is recorded as being supplied by an ecosystem type; countries are expected to use a national or regionally applicable classification (may differ from the EFG level used for demonstration).
  - Multiple supplying ecosystems: Where a service is supplied by a combination of ecosystem types, allocation of total supply to relevant ecosystem assets and types is required (see section 7.3.1 on spatial allocation).
  - Use table detail: Economic units should follow SNA structure; nine industry classes are shown for demonstration; columns include government, households, and exports (use by non-residents). Households can be disaggregated (e.g. by income quintile or rural/urban).
  - Intermediate services by ecosystem type: Shown for the three realms in scope; recording of intermediate services by ecosystem type is not applicable for provisioning or cultural services (these are final services). Services that appear provisioning in nature but function as intermediate (e.g. trophic connections, consumption of water by animals) should be recorded under nursery population and habitat maintenance services.

- Measurement guidance
  - Measurement unit choice depends on available data and the measurement method used; there are no prescribed measurement units in SEEA EA.
  - Relevant technical guidance: Guidelines on Biophysical Modelling for Ecosystem Accounting (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division, 2022a).

*Appendix A6.1 and Chapter 7 content as provided in the source document.*

### 7.15 In general, the measurement scope of a supply and use account is established on

### seeaeaea - 7.15 In general, the measurement scope of a supply and use account is established on

### Measurement scope and boundary rules
- Measurement scope is established on the basis of the ecosystem services supplied by all ecosystem types within an EAA.
- Supply and use must be balanced by recording use of ecosystem services by non-resident economic units (economic units that have a centre of economic interest outside the EAA).
- Exports of ecosystem services (use by non-resident units) are recorded in a central column of the use table; imports of ecosystem services supplied by ecosystem assets outside the EAA are recorded in the final column of the supply table.
- The total use of final ecosystem services supplied by ecosystems within an EAA includes exports of final ecosystem services.
- Recording of imports and exports of ecosystem services is discussed further in section 7.2.6.

### Supply and use tables — structure and content
- A single supply and use table (SUT) is compiled for one accounting period (usually one year).
- Tables shown in the source: Table 7.1a (Ecosystem services supply and use account in physical terms – supply table) and Table 7.1b (Ecosystem services supply and use account in physical terms – use table).
- Supply table features (from Table 7.1a):
  - Columns: Measurement unit; Economic units; Total supply by economic units; Ecosystem type (based on the EFG level 3 of IUCN GET); Total supply by resident ecosystem assets; Supply from non-resident ecosystem assets - Imports; Total supply by ecosystem assets; TOTAL SUPPLY.
  - Economic unit rows include Industries (Total industry, Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries, Mining and quarrying, Manufacturing, Electricity, gas, steam and air-conditioning supply, Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities, Services, Other industries), Government consumption, Household consumption, Total supply by resident economic units, Supply by non-resident economic units – Imports.
  - Ecosystem type rows include Terrestrial, Freshwater, Marine and detailed EFG level 3 codes (examples: T1 Tropical-subtropical forests, T2 Temperate-boreal forests and woodlands, ... T7, F1, FM1, M1, MFT1) and finer descriptions (e.g., Tropical-subtropical lowland rainforests, Tropical-subtropical dry forests and scrubs, ... Seagrass meadows, Coastal saltmarshes and reedbeds).
  - Ecosystem services (reference list) includes codes like T1.1, T1.2, T1.3, T1.4, T2.1, T2.2, ... T2.6, ... T7.5, F1.1, ... FM1.3, M1.1, ... MFT1.3 and categories: Provisioning services (e.g., Biomass provisioning, Crop provisioning, Grazed biomass provisioning, Livestock provisioning services, Aquaculture provisioning services, Wood provisioning services, Wild fish and other natural aquatic biomass provisioning services, Wild animals, plants and other biomass provisioning services, Genetic material services, Water supply, Other provisioning services); Regulating and maintenance services (e.g., Global climate regulation services, Rainfall pattern regulation services, Local (micro and meso) climate regulation services, Air filtration services, Soil quality regulation services, Soil and sediment retention services, Solid waste remediation services, Water purification services, Water flow regulation services, Flood control services, Storm mitigation services, Noise attenuation services, Pollination services, Biological control services, Nursery population and habitat maintenance services, Other regulating and maintenance services); Cultural services (e.g., Recreation-related services, Visual amenity services, Education, scientific and research services, Spiritual, artistic and symbolic services, Other cultural services).
- Use table features (from Table 7.1b):
  - Columns: Measurement unit; Economic units; Total use by economic units; Ecosystem type (based on the EFG level 3 of IUCN GET); Total use by resident ecosystem assets; Exports – intermediate services; Total use by ecosystem assets; TOTAL USE.
  - Economic unit rows parallel the supply table: Industries, Government consumption, Household consumption, Total use by resident economic units, Exports - final ecosystem services, and similar ecosystem type rows and ecosystem services reference list as in the supply table.
  - Use table lists exports both as “Exports – intermediate services” and “Exports - final ecosystem services” in relevant positions.

### Temporal and spatial presentation considerations
- A single SUT covers one accounting period (usually one year); ideally a time series of SUTs would be compiled to analyze changes over time.
- It may be more practical initially to compile tables once every three or five years to allow for the development of methods and experience.
- Where a time series is compiled, different presentations and arrangements may be required to support the demonstration of time as an additional dimension.
- Spatial presentation:
  - Maps overlaying different ecosystem services can identify ecosystem services “hotspots”.
  - When detailed spatial data are used, flows can be attributed to specific locations and ecosystem types; entries in the SUT that present flows by ecosystem type will be aggregations of finer-scale data and maps and tables are complementary outputs.
  - When aggregate, economy-wide methods are used (e.g., aggregate visits to national parks, total volumes of timber harvested for a country), attribution to ecosystem type may be more generic or stylized and may lack mapped outputs.
  - Although conceptually possible to present supply and use for each individual ecosystem asset using fine-level spatial data, there is no requirement to report at that level for national-scale accounts. SUTs in tables 7.1a and 7.1b focus on ecosystem types regardless of location.

### Core supply and use accounting principles applied to ecosystem services
- Key conceptual points:
  - Each ecosystem supplies or contributes to a bundle of ecosystem services; accounting maintains focus at the level of individual ecosystem assets though compilation may be by ecosystem types.
  - Ecosystem services are defined as contributions to benefits and distinguishing services from benefits:
    - Facilitates distinguishing between final ecosystem services and flows of products (SNA benefits) currently recorded in the SNA.
    - Recognizes the role of human inputs in production and that the contribution of ecosystem services to benefits may change over time (owing, for example, to changes in the methods of production).
    - Identifies the appropriate target for monetary valuation since the value of final ecosystem services represents only a portion of the overall monetary value of the corresponding benefits.
  - Ecosystem services flow account records flows supplied by ecosystem types and used by economic units during an accounting period; there is no accumulation of ecosystem services in the SUTs (measurement of potential or sustainable supply, i.e., ecosystem capacity, is discussed in section 6.5).
  - Recording supply equal to use treats ecosystem services as revealed transactions (supply-use pairs); each recorded exchange is observable and separable even if supply processes are connected.
- Specific applied features:
  - Supply is attributed to an ecosystem type. Where a service is jointly supplied by multiple ecosystems, allocation to individual assets can be done using spatial allocation methods or measurement conventions (see section 7.3).
  - Use of final ecosystem services is attributed to resident economic units (business, government, households) or non-resident economic units (exports).
  - Use of intermediate services is attributed to an ecosystem type.
  - For any single transaction (supply-use pair), the magnitude of the flow is the same for both supply and use in terms of quantity and monetary value.
  - Where multiple transactions of a single ecosystem service exist, the SUT allows supply from multiple ecosystem types and use by multiple users to be recorded; total flows pertaining to multiple ecosystem types or users should be attributed to relevant ecosystem types and users to best reflect underlying transactions.
- These principles allow SUT data to support monetary valuation of ecosystem services (described in chapter 9) and to align with economic data recorded in the SNA SUT (see 2008 SNA, chap. 14).
- Physical flows in ecosystem services flow account may coincide with flows in PSUTs and asset accounts in the SEEA Central Framework (chaps. III and V) for some resources (example: timber harvested from non-cultivated forests), and this overlap does not constitute double counting because tables serve distinct purposes; compilers are encouraged to cross-check among tables to ensure coherence.

### Ecosystem services versus SNA benefits; attribution of use
- When an ecosystem service flow is an input to production of an SNA benefit:
  - A supply-use pair is recorded in the ecosystem services supply and use account for the ecosystem service.
  - A separate supply-use pair is recorded in standard economic supply and use accounts for the transaction in the associated economic good or service (the SNA benefit).
  - Example: Biomass provisioning services for rice are recorded as use by a farmer in the ecosystem services account and correspond to entries for harvested rice and processed goods in economic SUTs (Table 7.2 demonstrates basic ecosystem services PSUT No. 1: ES No. 1: Biomass provisioning services (rice) — Tons 100 for both supply and use in the example).
- When an ecosystem service is an input to a non-SNA benefit (e.g., air filtration contributing to cleaner air):
  - A supply-use pair is recorded in the SUT by adding a row for the ecosystem service.
  - For many services contributing to non-SNA benefits, use is attributed to the receiver of the non-SNA benefit; where the non-SNA benefit is “collective”, use is attributed to the highest level of general government in the EAA, which uses the service on behalf of society.
  - The 2008 SNA (para. 9.4) phrasing included in the source: “a collective consumption service is a service provided simultaneously to all members of the community or to all members of a particular section of the community, such as all households living in a particular region” and “[c]ollective services are the ‘public goods’ of economic theory”.
  - Collective services are both non-rival and non-excludable; primary example: global climate regulation.

### Cross-references and examples cited
- Tables and examples referenced in the source: Table 7.1a, Table 7.1b, Table 7.2, Table 7.3.
- Sections and chapters referenced for further detail: section 7.2.6, section 7.3, section 6.5, chapter 6, chapter 9, chapter 11, 2008 SNA chap. 14, SEEA Central Framework chaps. III and V.

*Source: seeaeaea - 7.15 In general, the measurement scope of a supply and use account is established on — https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/manuals-and-guides/2025/english/seeaeaea.pdf*

### 7.33  There  are  cases  where  a  single  ecosystem  service  (e.g.  flood  mitigation)  is  used

### 7.33  There are cases where a single ecosystem service  (e.g.  flood  mitigation)  is  used

### Allocation when multiple economic units use the same service (paragraph 7.33)
- A single ecosystem service used by multiple economic units can possess some characteristics of public goods while specific beneficiaries can be identified.
- Ideal recording: the service is recorded in the use table as received by multiple economic units with distinctions (for example, households vs businesses).
- Practical recommendation: if allocating use across multiple economic units is difficult, allocate the use of the service to general government on behalf of all users.

### Recording intermediate services (paragraphs 7.34–7.36)
- Principle: where there is a sequence of intermediate ecosystem services and final ecosystem services, record supply and use of each service to show the appropriate net effect.
- Example (pollination → biomass provisioning):
  - Supply of pollination by grassland (where pollinators live) for use in cropland is recorded as an intermediate service.
  - Supply of the intermediate service (pollination) is attributed to grassland; use of pollination is attributed to cropland as an input to final biomass provisioning.
- Benefits:
  - Recording a sequence of supply and use entries allows determination of overall contribution of each ecosystem (e.g., cropland output of biomass provisioning requires pollination input from grassland).
- Cautions:
  - Do not aggregate across rows because entries reflect different measurement units.
  - No double counting is implied: user of intermediate service differs from user of associated final ecosystem service.
- Application to cultivated biomass production (paragraph 7.36):
  - Approach applies whether final ecosystem services are measured using gross biomass harvested as a proxy or using a share of biomass harvested to represent ecosystem contribution—intermediate service flows are inputs to final flows in both approaches.
  - Where final ecosystem services are measured using a range of individual ecosystem inputs (e.g., pollination), no measure of biomass harvested is recorded and each input is recorded as a final ecosystem service.
  - SUT format supports multiple connections, but the logic of connections must be well understood and reflect coherent biophysical relationships (consider type of biomass, location, method of cultivation).

### Numerical examples of supply and use framing (tables referenced in text)
- Table 7.4 (Basic ecosystem services PSUT No. 3) example entries:
  - SUPPLY — ES No. 1: Biomass provisioning services (melons) Tons80
  - SUPPLY — ES No. 2: Air filtration services (PM2.5) Tons50
  - SUPPLY — IS: Pollination services Number of visits 2 000
  - USE entries mirror supply entries with identical measures and values.
- Table 7.3 (Basic ecosystem services PSUT No. 2) example entries:
  - SUPPLY / USE — ES No. 1: Biomass provisioning services (rice) Tons100
  - SUPPLY / USE — ES No. 2: Air filtration services (PM2.5) Tons50
- Table 7.5 (Basic ecosystem services PSUT No. 4) adds an abiotic flow example:
  - SUPPLY / USE — AB: Energy from wind power kWh10 000
  - Other entries mirror Table 7.4 values (Tons80; Tons50; Number of visits 2 000).
- Table 7.6 (Basic ecosystem services PSUT No. 5) recreation example:
  - SUPPLY — ES No. 3: Recreation-related services Number of visits 180
  - USE — ES No. 3: Recreation-related services Number of visits 180
  - Supplementary data — Use of ES No. 3 by business Number of visits 180

### Recording abiotic flows (paragraphs 7.37–7.38)
- Abiotic flows (e.g., supply of energy) do not meet the definition of ecosystem services but may be relevant to assessing ecosystem use (e.g., solar panels reduce potential to use location for ecosystem services).
- If desired, add rows to SUT:
  - Each additional supply-row displays supply of the abiotic flow by ecosystem type (e.g., electricity generated from wind turbines on cropland).
  - Corresponding use-row displays use of that abiotic flow by economic units (e.g., electricity generators).
- Example shown in Table 7.5 includes AB: Energy from wind power kWh10 000 recorded in supply and use.

### Exports and imports of ecosystem services (paragraphs 7.39–7.48)
- Measurement scope: ecosystem accounts focus on services supplied by ecosystems within the EAA (economic accounting area).
- Six cases with specific treatments:
  1. Visitors from outside the EAA (tourists) using recreation services: allocate supply to non-residents and record as exports.
  2. Cross-border trade in biomass products (rice, wheat, timber, fish): these product flows are not recorded as ecosystem service exports; ecosystem services are considered embodied in traded products and recorded in standard economic SUTs and balance-of-payments statistics.
  3. Users located outside supplying ecosystem (e.g., air filtration by forest benefiting neighbouring communities): if location of use is outside the EAA, record an export of a final ecosystem service; if supply is outside the EAA, record an import.
  4. Collective services not attributable to individual households or businesses (e.g., global climate regulation): record as used by the government that has jurisdiction over the supplying ecosystem assets; no exports of collective services are recorded.
  5. Catching fish by non-resident operators within a country’s EEZ: treat as production of the non-resident operator; in ecosystem accounting, record export of biomass provisioning service in the supplying country’s supply table and a corresponding import in the operator’s resident country.
  6. Flows of intermediate services between EAAs (e.g., fish nursery services, species migration) should be recorded only in specific analytical circumstances:
     - (a) when the intermediate service import into an EAA can be clearly linked to a final ecosystem service supplied within that EAA; or
     - (b) when the intermediate service export from an EAA can be clearly linked to a final ecosystem service supplied outside the EAA.
- Imports: by definition supplied by ecosystems outside the EAA; measurement scope for imports should be determined by analytical interest (e.g., resident use of recreation services outside the EAA). Where recorded, imports are entered in the supply table and a corresponding use is recorded by economic unit type.
- Key requirement: appropriate allocation and recording of exports and imports require understanding of location of supply and use and residency of economic units. Spatial allocation issues (e.g., ecosystems spanning administrative boundaries) are addressed further in section 7.3.

### Recording cultural services (paragraphs 7.49–7.53)
- Cultural services involve interactions between people and ecosystems; quantification generally uses measures of type, number of occurrences, and/or quality of interaction.
  - Recreation-related services commonly proxied by number of visits to a natural location; proxies may be improved by considering number and length of interactions with specific ecosystem features.
- Businesses can be involved in:
  - (a) supplying access to the ecosystem and/or facilitating activities/experiences within the ecosystem (entry fees, guides, tour operators);
  - (b) supplying goods and services to visitors to support travel/time at ecosystem (hotels, restaurants, transport, fuel).
- Accounting interpretation:
  - For (a), transactions likely include an implicit payment for an ecosystem service where payments are made by visitors to those businesses.
  - For (b), ecosystem contribution to transactions is likely much smaller.
- Recommended treatment:
  - Record a supply and corresponding use for each visitor interaction showing supply from the relevant ecosystem type and households as users of the service, irrespective of business involvement.
  - Record connection between ecosystem and relevant businesses in a supplementary row (does not imply additional supply but enables complementary data on use of ecosystem services).
- Example: Table 7.6 shows recreation-related services Number of visits 180 recorded as supply and use, plus supplementary business-use Number of visits 180.

### Linking supply of ecosystem services to economic units (paragraphs 7.54–7.55)
- Supply and use tables allow recording flows between ecosystem types (as suppliers) and economic units (as users).
- Complementary presentation: show economic units that own or manage areas associated with ecosystem types as suppliers (e.g., farmers as suppliers of biomass provisioning, global climate regulation, water flow regulation reflecting ecosystem bundles on their managed land).
- Caution:
  - No necessary one-to-one link between ecosystem types and economic units (multiple ecosystem types commonly exist within a single parcel of land owned/managed by an economic unit).
  - Starting point for organizing flows to economic units should follow approach in chapter 4 regarding presentation of ecosystem extent data with respect to economic units.

*International Monetary Fund — System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (excerpts from section covering paragraphs 7.33–7.55).*

### 7.56  Through  use  of  information  on  the  relationship  between  ecosystem  types  and

### Through use of information on the relationship between ecosystem types and economic units

### Alternative supply table presentations (7.56–7.57)
- An alternative supply table may be structured, building on table 7.1a, to show under each ecosystem type (e.g. forests), the range of different types of economic units grouped, for example, by industry.
- Another option is to show for each type of economic unit (e.g. agriculture), the range of ecosystem types that it manages.
- Under either presentation, the total supply of a given ecosystem service from a specific ecosystem type should be the same as that recorded following the structure of the supply table shown in table 7.1a.
- Entries in the use table are unaffected by alternative presentations of the supply table.
- Presentation in maps, by overlaying data on ownership and management by economic units, may be particularly useful for some types of policymaking and analysis.

### Spatial allocation of ecosystem services supply and use (7.58–7.66)
- Many regulating and maintenance services, and some cultural services, are generated at landscape scale involving multiple ecosystem assets (e.g., contributions to water flow regulation and soil erosion control commonly measured at a catchment scale).
- For ecosystem accounting:
  - Total supply of an individual ecosystem service is appropriately measured at a larger, multi-ecosystem scale to derive the best estimate of supply.
  - Allocation of total supply to the various ecosystem types involved and conceptually to individual ecosystem assets is implied and supports identification of critical ecosystems within a catchment.
- Linking supply and use to the location of ecosystem assets (ecosystem extent) is conceptually feasible because ecosystem services are spatial phenomena.
- Spatial characteristics and flow paths produce different linkage types between supply and use:
  - Some benefits are received in the same place they are supplied (in situ ecosystem services). Most provisioning services fall into this category.
  - Some benefits are received in the surrounding landscape or beyond (omnidirectional ecosystem services). Global climate regulation services are an example.
  - Some benefits are received downstream or downslope from supply (directional ecosystem services); directional services can also depend on spatial proximity.
- Allocation considerations by service type:
  - Provisioning services: treated as supplied and used in the same ecosystem because the exchange between ecosystem and economic unit occurs at the point of harvest (in situ). Subsequent transactions are standard economic accounting.
  - Regulating and maintenance services: commonly supplied in one location and used by economic units in other locations; allocation across multiple ecosystem assets and multiple users should ensure total supply and total use are balanced and can be recorded using SUTs.
  - Cultural services: many are in situ (e.g., recreation), though some involve indirect connections with different supply and use locations. Location of use is the ecosystem, not dependent on the residence of the user; residence differences are reflected in classes of user (e.g., via exports).
- For compiling an SUT (tables 7.1a and 7.1b):
  - It is necessary to allocate supply of ecosystem services to ecosystem types.
  - It is not necessary to (a) allocate supply to individual ecosystem assets in specific locations; or (b) record the location of economic units using ecosystem services.
  - Attribution to locations remains important for spatial planning and assessment; allocation to locations often results as a by-product when detailed spatial data are used.
- Ecosystem services mapping:
  - Key concepts: service providing area (SPA) and service benefiting area (SBA).
  - For each ecosystem service, delineation of SPA and SBA provides location and spatial boundary for supply and use.
  - For accounting, link SPA with maps of ecosystem extent classified by ecosystem type and link SBA with information on the location of different types of economic units (including businesses, government, households), cadastral information, and users resident outside the EAA.

### Ecosystem services linkage typology (7.61)
- In situ ecosystem services: benefits received in the same place supplied (most provisioning services).
- Omnidirectional ecosystem services: benefits received in surrounding landscape or beyond (e.g., global climate regulation).
- Directional ecosystem services: benefits received downstream/downslope from supply; may depend on spatial proximity.

### Measurement baselines for ecosystem services (7.67–7.76)
- Ecosystem services flow account entries reflect total flow over an accounting period (e.g., total fish caught during a year, total number of plants pollinated). Measurement baselines ensure all accounting entries refer to a total flow.
- Ecosystem services measurement baselines:
  - Applied directly in measurement of regulating and maintenance services; implicit in measurement of all ecosystem services.
  - For provisioning and cultural services, the implicit baseline is zero (the quantification assumes potential for no harvest or no interaction).
  - For regulating and maintenance services, baselines compare current supply with an assumed alternative (e.g., different ecosystem type or characteristics).
  - The default measurement baseline is zero, reflecting assumption that the ecosystem does not supply a particular regulating service.
  - Where zero cannot be modelled or meaningfully identified, the baseline should be the amount of service supplied by bare land (i.e. the amount supplied where the ecosystem has no vegetation cover) or an alternative worst-case ecosystem scenario.
  - Clear communication and explanation of chosen baseline methods are required.
- Rationale and examples:
  - Air filtration: baseline corresponds to zero air filtration; supply equals quantity of pollutant absorbed by ecosystem.
  - Soil erosion control: quantified using RUSLE by comparing actual erosion rates with those for bare land (bare land as maximum potential erosion rate).
  - For services that regulate flows (e.g., water, soil), flows occur regardless of service provision; baseline needs to be bare land.
  - Where bare land baseline is conceptually weak, counter-intuitive, or unmodelable, differentiate systematically between services with bare land baseline and services with zero baseline.
- Table 7.7 — Baselines for selected regulating and maintenance services (as presented)
  - Global climate regulation services — No/zero carbon retention or sequestration
  - Air filtration services — No/zero air filtration
    - Comment: Following the treatment described in section 6.4.5, capture of pollutants by bare and rocky surfaces is included as an ecosystem service.
  - Water flow regulation services — Bare land
    - Comment: Overland and groundwater flows cannot be zero, and the ecosystem service can be quantified only by comparing a situation with vegetation with a situation where there is no vegetation (i.e. bare land).
  - Flood mitigation services — Bare land
    - Comment: Flood risks are influenced by geomorphology and can be reduced by tree cover (e.g. riparian forests or mangroves) or dunes along a coast. There is no such thing as “no flood risk” in coastal areas and hence the ecosystem service can be quantified only by comparing the flood risk in a situation with vegetation with the flood risk in a situation without vegetation (i.e. bare land).
  - Soil erosion control services — Bare land
    - Comment: The service can be quantified by comparing the erosion rate of the current vegetation cover with that for bare land, the difference being the amount of soil/sediment retained.
  - Water purification services — No purification (i.e. no biological breakdown of water pollutants in the ecosystem)
  - Pollination services — No/zero pollination
  - Rainfall pattern regulation services — Bare land
    - Comment: It is not possible to model rainfall patterns without assuming some rainfall and evapotranspiration across all components of the landscape. The ecosystem service can be quantified only by comparing a situation with vegetation with a situation where there is no vegetation (i.e. bare land).
  - Nursery population and habitat maintenance services — No/zero nursery services

### Key guidance on baselines
- Differentiate systematically between services with bare land baseline and services with zero baseline.
- Provide clear communication and explanation regarding chosen methods.
- Use established modelling approaches where appropriate (e.g., RUSLE for soil erosion control).

### Section D — Monetary valuation and integrated accounting for ecosystem services and assets (overview)
- Motivations exist for estimating the monetary value of the environment’s contribution to the economy and people, and for integrated assessments of connections between environment and economy (e.g., understanding changes in broad measures of wealth resulting from human and natural causes such as climate change and biodiversity loss).
- Monetary valuation is not appropriate in all decision-making contexts; associated biophysical data on stocks and flows remain relevant.
- Among statisticians, multiple perspectives exist on:
  - (a) the underlying framing for valuation of environmental stocks and flows;
  - (b) the potential of monetary valuation to support decision-making;
  - (c) the ability to produce reliable estimates in monetary terms in practice;
  - (d) the role of national statistical offices (NSOs) in producing fit-for-purpose statistics.
- The exchange value–based approach to monetary valuation of ecosystem services and assets is described in chapters 8 to 11.
  - At its fifty-second session, in March 2021, the Statistical Commission, in its decision 52/108, recognized that chapters 8 to 11 of SEEA EA describe internationally recognized statistical principles and recommendations for the valuation of ecosystem services and assets in a context that is coherent with the concepts of the SNA for countries undertaking valuation of ecosystem services and/or assets.
  - The Commission requested prompt resolution of outstanding methodological aspects in those chapters as identified in the research and development agenda.
- Recommendations in chapters 8 to 11 reflect current knowledge, methods and techniques; these are expected to evolve as implementation proceeds and refinements will be necessary.
- SEEA EA notes that exchange value–based monetary values exclude welfare measures commonly included in other environmental valuation contexts; chapter 12 supports understanding of connections among various monetary approaches.
- Monetary values from the accounts do not fully reflect ecosystems’ importance for people and the economy; assessing importance requires consideration of ecosystem extent, condition, and characteristics of dependent people, businesses and communities.
- Concerns about monetary estimation in practice due to data constraints and valuation technique application imply compilers should consider data quality and uncertainty before compiling and disseminating monetary accounts.
- Initial releases may be labeled experimental where appropriate.
- Technical guidance is available to support compilation, application and interpretation of monetary values and will be enhanced through the SEEA EA research and development agenda.

*Source: SEEA EA (excerpt).*

### Chapter 8

### Chapter 8 — Principles of monetary valuation for ecosystem accounting

### 8.1 Purposes and focus of monetary valuation for ecosystem accounting
- Primary motivations for monetary valuation vary by purpose and context and imply different requirements for concepts, methods and assumptions (8.1–8.2).
- In ecosystem accounting the primary motivation for monetary valuation is to enable comparison of different ecosystem services and ecosystem assets with standard measures of products and assets in national accounts by using exchange values (8.2).
- Exchange value-based monetary valuations can support:
  - comparing environmental assets with other asset types as part of extended measures of national wealth;
  - highlighting relevance of non-market ecosystem services (e.g. air filtration);
  - assessing contributions of ecosystem inputs to production in industries and supply chains;
  - comparing trade-offs between different ecosystem services via relative prices;
  - deriving aggregates such as degradation-adjusted measures of national income;
  - evaluating trends in income and wealth measures;
  - improving accountability/transparency by recognizing public environmental expenditure as investment rather than cost;
  - providing baseline data for scenario and economic modelling;
  - assessing financial risks associated with the environment;
  - calibrating monetary environmental policy instruments such as environmental markets and environmental taxes and subsidies (8.3).
- Monetary valuation commonly focuses on measuring impacts of changes in ecosystem assets and services on economic and human welfare (e.g. impacts of improved parks, reduced pollution, reduced soil fertility on farm incomes) and supports project-level impact analysis, cost-benefit analysis and compensation/damage assessment (8.4).
- SEEA EA accounts complement detailed impact analysis by providing coherent framing for collection and organisation of data and supporting micro-macro linkages and change-over-time assessment (8.4).

Key contextual points and limitations (8.5):
- There are multiple value perspectives (including intrinsic and instrumental); SEEA EA monetary values do not encompass all perspectives (e.g. spiritual connections) though physical data may support some perspectives.
- Monetary values are most applicable for analysing marginal changes; for large, non-marginal changes (e.g. permanent loss of a water resource) analysis should incorporate physical stock changes and thresholds.
- Monetary values for services that are not scarce or are in excess supply may be low or zero under the exchange value concept; such values must be interpreted with PSUTs and in light of regulatory/market context.
- Monetary values for non-market goods/services (e.g. government-provided health, education, defence) cannot be based on observed market transactions and are estimated by alternative methods that approximate exchange value; these methods reflect partial equilibrium and require location/context specificity (8.5).

- Integrated recording of physical and monetary data in SEEA EA is emphasized because non-monetary data play a primary role in many situations (8.6).
- This chapter outlines core principles of monetary valuation used in ecosystem accounting within national accounting concepts (8.7).

Focus of monetary valuation (8.8–8.12)
- Monetary valuation in ecosystem accounting depends on (a) definition and scope of included goods, services and assets, and (b) the valuation concept used; SEEA EA applies the exchange values concept, consistent with the SNA (8.8).
- Much environment-related valuation has focused on welfare changes using the Total Economic Value framework (direct use, indirect use, non-use). Monetary techniques often approximate consumer and producer surplus for welfare changes (8.9).
- Accounting values exclude consumer surplus and exclude non-use values from ecosystem service values; hence accounting valuations for non-SNA benefits regularly differ, potentially significantly, from environmental-economic study estimates and are lower when aggregating ecosystem values (8.10).
  - Footnote 81: While non-use values are excluded from ecosystem service values in SEEA EA, transactions associated with non-use values (e.g. donations to environmental charities, payments for eco-friendly products) are recorded in standard economic accounts; separate identification of these values is not considered in SEEA EA.
- Appendix A12.1 summarises theoretical and practical connections between account values and welfare values to support non-market valuation methods in chap. 9 (8.11).
- The gap between accounting values and alternative valuation concepts can provide important information; chapter 12 introduces complementary approaches including analysis of externalities and a restoration cost-based approach to valuation of ecosystem degradation (8.12).

### 8.2 Valuation concepts and principles for accounting
8.2.1 Exchange values and market price concepts in national accounting
- Entries in national accounts reflect exchange values as defined in the SNA: values at which goods, services, labour or assets are in fact exchanged or could be exchanged for cash (2008 SNA, para. 3.118) (8.13).
- For most account entries, exchange values are measured using observed transactions involving market prices, defined as amounts that willing buyers pay to acquire something from willing sellers (2008 SNA, para. 3.119). Observed market prices embody revealed preferences (8.14).
- The definition of market prices does not presume a specific market structure; market transactions may occur in monopolistic, monopsonistic, or other market structures and should reflect current institutional context including market imperfections and legal/regulatory arrangements (2008 SNA, para. 3.119) (8.15).
- Where market prices are not observed for transactions, national accounts estimate exchange values using alternative methods so aggregation across market and non-market goods/services is possible (8.16–8.17).
- Two primary alternative methods in the SNA for goods/services:
  - adjustment of market prices of similar or analogous items for quality and other differences (2008 SNA, para. 3.123);
  - derivation of prices based on the current cost to produce them where no appropriate market exists (2008 SNA, para. 3.135) (8.18).
- Cost-based techniques are commonly applied for valuing government-supplied services (education, health, defence) and public goods, assuming expenditure embodies revealed preferences even though such values will not reflect full social benefits (8.19).
- Transactions in assets are valued using observed prices or the two alternative methods; exchange values of assets are required for asset accounts and balance sheets at opening/closing dates (8.20).
  - Where market prices at balance sheet dates are unavailable for assets like ecosystem assets, the SNA describes:
    - written-down replacement cost: current acquisition price of an equivalent new asset less accumulated depreciation (2008 SNA, para. 13.23);
    - discounted present value of expected future returns (2008 SNA, para. 3.137). The latter is of primary relevance for ecosystem accounting because there are no observable acquisition prices encompassing the range of ecosystem service values supplied by an ecosystem asset (8.20).
- Accounting entries aggregate multiple transactions over accounting periods and are recorded at nominal values applying at the time of the transaction or balance sheet entry (8.21).

8.2.2 Monetary valuation of ecosystem services (8.22)
- Ecosystem services are supplied by ecosystem assets; ecosystem assets are additional accounting units distinct from standard economic units (chap. 2).
- From a national accounting perspective, flows of ecosystem services can be conceptualized two ways:
  - ecosystem assets as complex interacting producing units supplying outputs to various users (societal benefit perspective, chap. 2);
  - flows analogous to capital services supplied by produced and non-produced assets (asset value perspective, chap. 2 and chap. 20 of the 2008 SNA).
- These perspectives are reconciled for monetary valuation by treating the output of ecosystem assets as producing units consisting solely of capital services (8.22).

*seeaeaea - Chapter 8*

### 8.23 Thus, in concept, ecosystem services should be valued for accounting purposes

### 8.23 Thus, in concept, ecosystem services should be valued for accounting purposes

### Alignment with SNA valuation principles
- Ecosystem services should be valued for accounting purposes in a manner aligned with the valuation of capital services in the SNA.
- The value of ecosystem services is different from the rentals that would be charged following the definitions in the 2008 SNA (para. 6.245).
- Example analogy: rentals paid by a tenant to a landlord cover capital services provided by the dwelling85 and direct operating costs; output is measured as rentals and direct costs must be deducted to determine the value of capital services and gross operating surplus.

### Distinguishing ecosystem services from benefits and measurement focus
- Ecosystem services are distinguished from the benefits to which they contribute; valuation focuses on the contribution of the ecosystem asset (the input of ecosystem services), not on valuation of the benefits.86
- For agricultural production, direct operating and input costs (e.g. fuel, fertilizer, labour and produced assets) must be deducted from output (e.g. rice) to isolate the value of the ecosystem services.
- For each final ecosystem service, a single capital service flow between an ecosystem asset and an economic unit can be envisaged; multiple supply contexts and user combinations may require recording a variety of capital service flows, including possible imports and exports of ecosystem services.

### Bundles of services, separability, and allocation
- A single ecosystem asset typically supplies a bundle of ecosystem services.
- Following measurement principles set out in chapter 6, separate transactions should be recorded for each type of service supplied to each type of user, assuming separability of services.
- If bundles cannot be clearly separated in practice, it is appropriate to value the bundle as a whole and apply allocation methods to reduce potential double counting.

### Relationship to the SNA production boundary and accounting context
- Ecosystem services lie outside the SNA production boundary that defines measured GDP; monetary valuation using national accounting principles complements but does not replace current national accounting estimates.87
- Valuation of ecosystem services is analogous to compiling estimates of the value of unpaid household work—comparable with but not a replacement for standard national accounts values.
- Two valuation contexts using the SNA production boundary:
  - SNA benefits: ecosystem services that are inputs to production within the SNA production boundary (e.g. biomass provisioning, pollination by wild bees). Monetary valuation partitions national account values of goods and services to reveal the ecosystem contribution; the ecosystem service is recorded as an output of the ecosystem asset and an input of the economic unit. In a system-wide context, value added is unaffected, but both total outputs and total inputs are increased.88
  - Non-SNA benefits: ecosystem services contributing to benefits not included in national accounts (e.g. air filtration by forests). Estimating exchange-value accounting entries requires:
    - (a) determining hypothetical market prices that would be charged on behalf of the ecosystem asset if a market existed;
    - (b) estimating costs an economic unit would incur to secure the ecosystem service benefits; or
    - (c) assessing loss of benefits to an economic unit if ecosystem services were lost.

### Valuation methods and practical considerations
- Market-price methods used in national accounts can be applied to ecosystem services and assets; where links to SNA benefits exist, associated market prices provide a clear valuation starting point.
- For non-SNA benefits, market price equivalents and cost-based methods may be used, along with additional methods to address varied services and contexts.
- Section 9.3 (chapter 9) describes appropriate valuation methods for estimating market price-based exchange values for monetary ecosystem accounts.
- Value transfer techniques are necessary where market prices are not estimated for all transactions; these must consider spatial, institutional, and ecosystem-type variations. Section 9.5 discusses value transfer techniques for ecosystem accounting.
- Since monetary values are estimated using the exchange value concept and recorded in the same currency units, it is possible to sum across ecosystem services to derive aggregated measures (see section 9.2).

### Monetary valuation of ecosystem assets — NPV approach
- Ecosystem assets are recorded based on exchange values and associated changes during an accounting period (ecosystem enhancement, degradation, conversions, revaluations).
- The NPV approach is adopted: value is determined by estimating the stream of expected future income and discounting it to the present accounting period (SEEA Central Framework, para. 5.110).
- In ecosystem accounting, NPV is applied by aggregating NPVs of expected future returns for each ecosystem service supplied by an ecosystem asset.
- Use of NPV implies value relates to capacity to supply services and expected future changes; if use is sustainable with no expected decline in condition, the asset’s life will be infinite.
- Application requires measurement of expected future returns for each service and selection of a discount rate; the discount rate can have a large effect on estimated monetary values (see chapter 10).
- Factors to consider when measuring expected future returns include:
  - (a) scope of returns (number of ecosystem services to include);
  - (b) future patterns of flows in physical terms, including expected degradation and demand patterns;
  - (c) expected future prices for each ecosystem service;
  - (d) expected institutional arrangements;
  - (e) expected asset life.
- The NPV of an ecosystem asset equals the sum of estimated NPVs for each ecosystem service.
- Valuation at the individual ecosystem asset level assumes data availability to attribute service supply at that scale; where infeasible, valuation by ecosystem type may be used but must account for spatial/contextual variation (e.g. distance from population centres affecting recreation values).
- The approach assumes expected future returns for each service are separable, but recognizes interdependencies among services (e.g. timber harvesting reducing global climate regulation services).
- The NPV application does not require assumptions about economic ownership of the ecosystem asset unless integrating monetary values into institutional sector accounts (chapter 11).
- Market prices for anthropogenic ecosystem types (e.g. cropland, urban areas) may not capture all ecosystem services and thus should not be used directly to value ecosystem assets; yet correlations may exist for some services and valuation methods using market information are described in chapter 9.
- Chapter 10 provides recommendations on valuing ecosystem enhancement, degradation, conversions, other volume changes (including catastrophic losses), and revaluations.

### Volume, price measures, and aggregation practices
- Analysis of nominal values (prices of the accounting period) is useful for structure and budget comparisons.
- Standard accounting practice decomposes changes between two points into price and volume changes to derive constant price (volume) measures.89 90
- Because prices for most ecosystem services are not observable, standard price-index-based methods cannot be applied; spatial price variation is a particular consideration.
- It is not recommended that compilers at this stage aim to develop volume estimates of ecosystem services and assets aligned with national accounts.
- Where relevant, aggregate nominal values of ecosystem services and assets may be adjusted using a general economy-wide price measure (e.g. consumer price index or GDP deflator) to produce “real measures”.

*Source: System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (excerpt: chapter 8 and chapter 9 introduction).*

### 9.2 The ecosystem services flow account in monetary terms records the monetary

### 9.2 The ecosystem services flow account in monetary terms records the monetary

### Purpose and analytical uses
- Records the monetary value of flows of ecosystem services based on their exchange values.
- Analytical uses:
  - Understand the relative economic significance of different ecosystem services (within the valuation framing of the national accounts).
  - Support aggregation of ecosystem services for comparing the role of different ecosystem assets.
  - Understand changes in monetary value over time.
  - Underpin comparison of the inputs of different ecosystem services to different users.
  - Support understanding of the role of ecosystem services in different locations (for example, across countries).
- In an accounting context, use of exchange values requires drawing clear links between the supply of ecosystem services and the users of ecosystem services to highlight economic costs arising from loss of ecosystem services and the role of government as a provider of public goods.

### Valuation scope, limitations, and documentation
- The valuation approach in ecosystem accounting:
  - Does not provide a comprehensive measure of the value of nature.
  - Likely reflects a subset of all ecosystem services because common practice begins with a limited number of ecosystem services.
  - Excludes measures of consumer surplus when monetary values are based on exchange values (section 8.1.2).
  - Chapter 12 considers complementary approaches to valuation.
- Compilers should document:
  - The scope of ecosystem services included.
  - Ecosystem services excluded from measurement and valuation.
  - This documentation is required so users can interpret aggregate monetary measures and to reinforce the relevance of physical-term data for decision-making.

### Account structure and consistency with physical accounts
- The monetary ecosystem services flow account:
  - Follows the structure of an SUT and has the same underlying structure as the ecosystem services flow account in physical terms (chapter 7).
  - Uses an SUT format to record flows of different types of ecosystem services between ecosystem assets and economic units.
  - Should exhibit consistency with the physical account in structure, classification, and labelling of components (e.g., ecosystem services and ecosystem assets).
- Scope and alignment:
  - The set of ecosystem services included in the monetary account should generally align with the physical account, though the monetary set may be smaller if some flows are difficult to value.
  - The primary scope is determined by ecosystem assets located within the EAA (suppliers); users consist of resident SNA economic units and allow for non-resident economic units and other ecosystem assets (intermediate services).
  - Flows supplied by non-resident ecosystem assets are recorded as “Supply from non-resident ecosystem assets – Imports”.
- Entries in the SUT:
  - Should be based on the exchange value concept, apply a common currency unit, and pertain to a single accounting period with entries recorded in the prices of that period (i.e. nominal values).
  - Separate SUTs can be compiled for different accounting periods to form a time series.
- Correspondence with PSUT:
  - The definition and measurement scope of each ecosystem service is the same as in the PSUT, including intermediate services, imports and exports, subsistence production, and abiotic flows.
  - Physical flows should be consistent with monetary entries to support a coherent picture of supply and use.
  - Allocation of supply to users should be consistent with allocation in the PSUT; user should not be determined by choice of valuation method.
  - The accounting period should be the same as for the PSUT.

### Treatment of intermediate services, imports, and exports
- Intermediate services:
  - Must be recorded as part of a chain of flows that results in a final ecosystem service (chapter 7 guidance).
  - Intermediate services are inputs used by ecosystem assets to supply final ecosystem services.
  - In monetary terms, total supply is increased by recording flows of intermediate services and offset by recording use of ecosystem services by ecosystem assets (no double counting).
  - In a chain, the ecosystem type recorded as using the intermediate service should also be the ecosystem type recorded as supplying the related final ecosystem service.
- Imports and exports:
  - The supply and use framework allows recording of use by resident economic units when services are supplied by ecosystem assets outside the EAA (e.g., residents receiving cultural services abroad; regulating services reflecting contributions from outside the EAA).
  - Such flows are recorded in the supply table under “Supply from non-resident ecosystem assets – Imports”.
  - Chapter 7 provides extended discussion on exports and imports treatments.

### Compilation methods and value transfer
- Monetary entries are generally obtained by:
  - Multiplying a measure of the service flow in physical terms by a price estimated using an appropriate method (section 9.3 describes methods).
- Data gaps and value transfer:
  - Because data are commonly unavailable for all transactions, value transfer techniques are necessary to estimate values across locations.
  - Value transfer accounts for differences in environmental and socioeconomic contexts and involves assumptions about price variation across locations.
  - Section 9.5 discusses relevant issues concerning value transfer.
- When direct monetary measurement is used:
  - If the accounting entry is measured directly rather than via separate price and quantity estimates, a quantitative flow estimate should still be included in the PSUT to maintain coherence and support assessment of ecosystem asset changes (e.g., degradation).

### Aggregation and presentation
- Because monetary entries use a common currency and exchange value concept, it is possible to derive aggregate measures of ecosystem services, such as:
  - A bundle of ecosystem services supplied by an ecosystem type (e.g., all ecosystem services supplied by forests within an EAA).
  - A bundle of ecosystem services used by an industry (e.g., ecosystem services used by the fishing industry).
- The total value of all final ecosystem services supplied by ecosystems within an EAA includes exports of those services.
- Presentation and geospatial considerations:
  - Supply is typically presented by ecosystem type; spatial approaches commonly attribute ecosystem service flows to ecosystem type using ecosystem modelling and geospatial techniques (chapters 6 and 7).
  - Monetary-term maps require clear articulation of the approach to estimating prices across the EAA.
- Tables illustrated:
  - Table 9.1a: Ecosystem services supply and use account in monetary terms – supply table (SUT-style presentation by ecosystem type, ecosystem services reference list, economic unit columns including total supply by resident ecosystem assets and imports).
  - Table 9.1b: Ecosystem services supply and use account in monetary terms – use table (SUT-style presentation by ecosystem type, includes exports – intermediate services and exports - final ecosystem services).
  - Note: The list of ecosystem services presented in the tables is indicative only.

*Source: seeaeaea - 9.2 The ecosystem services flow account in monetary terms records the monetary*

### 9.17 Aggregate measures of ecosystem services in monetary terms can be derived by

### 9.17 Aggregate measures of ecosystem services in monetary terms can be derived by summing across columns (i.e. to estimate total supply or use of a single service) and by summing down rows (i.e. to estimate total supply by an ecosystem type or total use by type of economic unit)

### Aggregate measures and Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP)
- Aggregate measures:
  - Can be derived by summing across columns (total supply or use of a single service).
  - Can be derived by summing down rows (total supply by ecosystem type or total use by type of economic unit).
  - Are useful for comparisons to measures of output, intermediate consumption and value added in the standard national accounts, including at an industry level (e.g. for agriculture).
- Gross ecosystem product (GEP):
  - Defined as: the sum of all final ecosystem services at their exchange value supplied by all ecosystem types located within an EAA over an accounting period less the net imports of intermediate services.92
  - When net imports of intermediate services (imports less exports of intermediate services; see sect. 7.2.6) are small, GEP may be assumed to be the sum of final ecosystem services supplied by the EAA.
  - Scope of GEP:
    - Covers provisioning, regulating and maintenance, and cultural services.
    - Excludes the monetary value of abiotic flows, spatial functions and non-use values.
  - Notes:
    - Supply of final ecosystem services includes exports to non-resident economic units; imports of final ecosystem services are not included in GEP as they represent contributions by ecosystems located in other EAAs.92
    - The measure is “gross” because it does not deduct any associated ecosystem degradation arising in the supply of the services.92
    - Measurement of GEP has been actively pursued in China (see Ouyang and others (2020)).92

### Recording use-table entries and spatial context
- Completing entries in the use table (table 9.1b):
  - Does not require recording the location of the user; it is sufficient to record the type of economic unit, whether the unit is resident or non-resident, and the relevant class (e.g. type of industry).
  - The location of users relative to the location of the supplying ecosystem asset needs to be known so that price estimation is aligned with the spatial context.

### Valuation techniques for ecosystem services — overview and preferred order
- Purpose:
  - Describe methods that support derivation of prices consistent with exchange values for entry into the accounts.
  - Preference for methods that translate observable and revealed prices and costs (for related or similar goods and services) into accounting values.
- Recommended order of valuation methods (from highest to lowest preference):23
  - (a) Methods where the price for the ecosystem service is directly observable;
  - (b) Methods where the price for the ecosystem service is obtained from markets for similar goods and services;
  - (c) Methods where the price for the ecosystem service is embodied in a market transaction;
  - (d) Methods where the price for the ecosystem services is based on revealed expenditures (costs) for related goods and services;
  - (e) Methods where the price for the ecosystem service is based on expected expenditures or expected markets.
- Additional guidance:
  - Other environmental valuation methods are summarized but are not recommended for SEEA EA use without adjustment to align with the exchange value concept.
  - Documentation of data sources, methods and assumptions used should be made publicly available.
  - Matching of methods to ecosystem-service types is discussed further in section 9.4 and in Monetary Valuation of Ecosystem Services and assets for Ecosystem Accounting (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division, 2022b).
  - The methods described focus on final ecosystem services but can also be applied to intermediate services where recorded.

### Methods where prices are directly observable
- Directly observed values (section 9.3.2):
  - Examples:
    - Wetland owners charging a water company for water purification services — a transaction in ecosystem services that can be recorded.
    - Stumpage values charged to timber logging businesses.
    - Land rental prices in agriculture where markets exist for renting land for crop production or grazing; rental prices may be used to derive prices for biomass provisioning services.
  - Guidance:
    - Use observed prices when they reflect established institutional arrangements and market context; low recorded prices may reflect open-access contexts where resource rents tend to zero.93
    - Observed prices should still be applied in accounting if institutional arrangements are mature and large; hypothetical alternative institutional-context values should not be recorded in ecosystem accounts but may be shown in complementary accounts (see chap. 12).
    - Payments for ecosystem services schemes should not generally be used to estimate prices unless there is clear evidence the scheme targets a specific service; many schemes aim to support land managers or implement broader social policy rather than reveal prices for specific services.
  - Carbon markets and climate regulation:
    - Observed prices from emission trading systems may be used to estimate prices for global climate regulation services based on carbon retention.94
    - If trading systems are insufficiently mature, alternatives include data on the marginal costs of abatement95 or the social cost of carbon when derived from models consistent with the exchange value concept (limited to assessment of effects on measures of output).94
  - Market maturity and economic significance:
    - SNA does not require prices to originate from competitive markets; monopolistic or oligopolistic market prices are recorded without adjustment.
    - If directly observed prices are considered not economically significant (e.g., small park entry fees), the observed price should not be used and alternative valuation methods applied.96
    - Care should be taken regarding the size and maturity of markets; small or immature markets may not be sufficiently representative.

### Methods where prices are obtained from markets for similar goods and services
- Prices from similar markets (section 9.3.3):
  - When market prices for a specific ecosystem service are not observable, derive valuation from market prices of the same or similar items traded in sufficient numbers and similar circumstances (SNA para. 3.123).
  - Example:
    - Use prices for marketed non-wood forest products (e.g., mushrooms) from one forest to value similar non-marketed products in another forest, adjusting for differences and supply costs so the derived price corresponds to the ecosystem service.
  - Note:
    - Prices from similar markets reflect the existing institutional context in the same way as directly observed values.

### Methods where prices (and associated values) are embodied in market transactions
- Residual value and resource rent methods (section 9.3.4):
  - Concept:
    - Estimate value for an ecosystem service by taking the gross value of the final marketed good to which the ecosystem service contributes and deducting the cost of all other inputs, including labour, produced assets and intermediate inputs (formula taken from table 5.5 of the SEEA Central Framework).
  - Practical considerations and limitations:
    - The residual may reflect a combination of other non-paid and indirect inputs, making it difficult to isolate the ecosystem service contribution.
    - Estimates are subject to errors in calculating values of all “paid” inputs.
    - The size of the residual is directly affected by institutional arrangements surrounding ecosystem use.
    - Methods are often applied using broad, industry-level data and may lack granularity for location-specific monetary values.
    - Because these methods are based on observed data, resulting values reflect the current institutional context and can provide high-level framing for monetary values.
  - Distinction:
    - Resource rent method reflects an aggregate value of rent in a given circumstance, while the residual value method focuses on calculating the rental price, where the rent is determined in a market with a fixed supply and a competitive demand.97
  - Formula excerpt (from SEEA Central Framework, table 5.5):
    - Output
    - less intermediate consumption
    - less compensation of employees
    - less other taxes on production
    - plus other subsidies on production
    - Equals gross operating surplus
    - less consumption of fixed capital (depreciation)
    - less return to produced assets
    - less labour of self-employed persons
    - Equals resource rent
    - = depletion + net return to environmental assets
- Productivity change method:
  - Treats the ecosystem service as an input in the production function of a marketed good.
  - Valuation steps:
    - Estimate the marginal product of the ecosystem service as the change in value of production from a marginal change in supply of the service.
    - Multiply the marginal product by the price of the marketed good to derive a marginal value product.
    - Multiply the marginal value product by the physical quantity of the provided ecosystem service to obtain the value.
  - Applicability and limitations:
    - Has been used for water services and pollination in agriculture where production functions can be estimated.
    - Well suited for services that are inputs to existing SNA outputs.
    - Difficult where multiple goods and ecosystem services interact; data-intensive and scaling to national level may be difficult.
- Hedonic pricing method:
  - Estimates the differential premium on property values or rental values (or other composite goods) arising from an ecosystem characteristic (e.g., clean air, local parks).
  - Commonly used to measure amenities provided to residents.
  - Requires standardizing and including all other property characteristics (size, number of rooms, central heating, garage space, etc.) and consideration of geographical, neighbourhood and ecosystem characteristics.

*Source: seeaeaea - 9.17 Aggregate measures of ecosystem services in monetary terms can be derived by (seeaeaea - 9.17 Aggregate measures of ecosystem services in monetary terms can be derived by, PDF).*

### 9.41 In the context of ecosystem accounting, the decomposition of these values into

### seeaeaea - 9.41 In the context of ecosystem accounting, the decomposition of these values into

### Hedonic pricing and decomposition of property values
- Decompose property values into:
  - the part explained by the ecosystem characteristic; and
  - the part explained by the remaining characteristics of the property.
- Use of decomposition:
  - to estimate a value for the relevant ecosystem service (e.g. air filtration services or recreation-related services) for a specific property.
- Conversion requirement:
  - Where the hedonic pricing method is applied to property values rather than rental values, the resulting prices need to be converted so as to relate to an annual service flow using a suitable rate of return.
- Transferability:
  - Estimated prices for the ecosystem service can be applied in other locations (for example, by deriving prices per hectare).
  - May be considered for other property or rental value contexts such as agriculture land sales or rentals in the context of biomass provisioning services.
- Limitation:
  - Hedonic pricing reveals a value for accounting purposes only in the case of a fully informed and fluid market where buyers can find properties with sets of characteristics that are an optimal fit with their preferences.

### Methods based on revealed expenditures on related goods and services (cost-based methods)
- General:
  - Adopted when prices for ecosystem services cannot be estimated using other methods described.
- Averting behaviour method:
  - Assumes individuals and communities spend money preventing or mitigating negative effects from adverse environmental impacts.
  - Revealed expenditures (e.g. extra filtration to purify polluted water, air conditioning to avoid air pollution) demonstrate the value placed on associated ecosystem services.
  - Expenditures are a lower-bound estimate of benefits of mitigation (benefits at least equal to share of costs incurred).
  - Advantages: easier to estimate expenses than avoided environmental damage.
  - Disadvantages:
    - Expenditures may not be highly sensitive to differences in environmental quality (not spatially sensitive like damage functions).
    - Need to (a) align expenditures to specific ecosystem services because they may reflect securing a bundle of services; and (b) ensure expenditures reflect only the cost of avoiding environmental impacts rather than also reflecting taste and consumption preferences.
- Travel cost method:
  - Estimates value of recreational areas from revealed preferences of visitors.
  - Estimates a demand function by observing number of trips at different travel costs.
  - Travel cost data include household expenditures to reach site, entrance fees, and may include opportunity cost of time.
  - Detailed travel cost data should consider different features of visited sites.
  - Area under the demand function provides welfare value (including consumer surplus).
  - For accounting, need calculation of the exchange value of associated ecosystem services (generally recreation-related).
    - An exchange value can be estimated on the basis of the demand function using the simulated exchange value method.
    - In absence of demand functions, exchange values can be approximated using aggregated travel cost data (e.g. data on fuel).
    - Where travel cost data are not available, an alternative is summing relevant consumption expenditures (e.g. using data from tourism satellite accounts).

### Methods based on expected expenditures or hypothetical markets
- Rationale:
  - Estimate expenditures that would be expected if the ecosystem service was no longer provided or if it were sold on a market; loss of ecosystem services would increase monetary costs or reduce incomes.
- Replacement cost method:
  - Estimates cost of replacing an ecosystem service by a substitute providing the same contribution to benefits (also called substitute cost or alternative cost).
  - Substitutes can be:
    - a consumption item (e.g. an air filtration unit substituting for trees’ air filtration),
    - an input factor (e.g. sorghum substituting for non-priced forage), or
    - a capital factor (e.g. a water treatment plant).
  - If substitute provides identical contribution, the price of the ecosystem service equals the cost of using the substitute to provide same benefits per unit (e.g. price of a ton of forage).
  - If applied in a single context, a direct accounting entry may be estimated based on total substitute cost in that context.
  - Validity depends on three conditions:
    - (a) the substitute can perform exactly the same function as the ecosystem service being substituted for;
    - (b) the substitute used is the least-cost alternative; and
    - (c) there would be a willingness to pay for the substitute if the ecosystem service was no longer supplied.
- Avoided damage costs method:
  - Estimates value based on costs of damages that would occur due to loss of services.
  - Damages should be estimated using prices consistent with the exchange value concept for accounting purposes.
  - Validity depends on similar conditions as replacement cost method.
  - Particularly useful for regulating services such as soil erosion control, flood control, air filtration and global climate regulation.
  - Estimation identifies economic units expected to avoid damage costs because of supply of ecosystem services (e.g. value of air filtration related to avoided health costs by governments); this is a means of estimating service value and does not imply those units are users of the services.
  - If both replacement cost and avoided damage cost prices can be estimated, use the lower of the two estimated prices (in most contexts expected to be replacement cost-based prices).
- Simulated exchange value method (footnote marker 99/100 present in source):
  - Estimates the price and quantity that would prevail if the ecosystem service were traded in a hypothetical market, providing a direct estimate of value based on the exchange value concept.
  - Uses results from demand functions (e.g. from travel cost method or stated preference methods) combined with a supply function and appropriate market structure.
  - Standard microeconomic methods produce the simulated price, which estimates the value of the ecosystem service.
  - Can be applied at various levels of complexity and market structures; less widely applied than other methods.
  - Note: Where the simulated quantity differs from the observed quantity (e.g. in terms of the number of visits), the simulated price can be adjusted subsequently so that the simulated exchange value remains unchanged.

### Other valuation methods and limitations
- Range of other methods exist in environmental economics and ecosystem services literature; they should not be applied in preference to methods in section 9.3. If used, data must be checked for consistency with exchange value principles and adjusted before use.
- Shadow project cost method:
  - Variant of replacement cost focusing on hypothetical costs of providing same service elsewhere.
  - Less suitable for valuation of individual ecosystem services since not intended to capture individual flows.
  - Alternatives include asset reconstruction, asset transplantation, and asset restoration.
  - The three replacement cost conditions apply; valid only if shadow project is actually realized or planned.
- Restoration cost method:
  - Linked to shadow project; values ecosystem degradation by estimating costs to restore an ecosystem to its condition at the beginning of the accounting period (discussed further in chapter 12).
- Opportunity costs of alternative uses:
  - Measures value by forgone benefits of not using the ecosystem for alternative uses (e.g. forgone income from selling timber when not harvesting trees).
  - Values can be considered exchange values provided:
    - (a) valuation of forgone benefits is based on exchange values; and
    - (b) institutional context is sufficiently realistic to permit analysis of the alternative scenario.
  - Primary difficulty: determining a realistic alternative use as forgone benefits vary substantially with choice.
- Stated preference methods:
  - Use questionnaires to elicit likely responses in hypothetical situations (do not use existing market behavior).
  - Do not reveal exchange values directly and require adjustment for accounting use.
  - Primary methods for estimating non-use values; relevant in some applications (see chapter 12).
  - Two broad categories:
    - Contingent valuation:
      - Survey-based; describes a hypothetical market and elicits willingness to pay (WTP) or willingness to accept (WTA) for changes in provision.
      - Respondents assumed to behave as though in a real market.
    - Choice experiments:
      - Offer alternatives with varying characteristics and a cost variable plus a baseline representing status quo; analysis yields value placed on each characteristic.
  - Information obtained is on WTP or WTA and hence on changes in consumer and producer surplus; not exchange values directly.
  - By combining WTP/WTA across recipients to derive a demand function, a simulated exchange value can be obtained.
- Prices from economic modelling:
  - Possible to derive prices for ecosystem services from economic models (e.g. computable general equilibrium models that include environmental factors).
  - Models can yield prices from dynamic market contexts but data requirements make them unlikely to be suitable for ecosystem accounting.
- Qualitative methods:
  - Include deliberative and group methods; not designed for monetary valuation and not considered appropriate for ecosystem accounting.

### Valuation methods for different ecosystem services and provisioning services
- General guidance:
  - For compiling the ecosystem services flow account in monetary terms, apply methods from section 9.3 to individual ecosystem services.
  - Compilers should be guided by the order of preference for valuation methods outlined in section 9.3.1.
  - In practice, method selection often depends on data availability.
- Provisioning services:
  - Include living resources harvested from unmanaged natural systems (uncultivated biomass) to highly managed plantations, aquaculture and livestock systems (cultivated biomass).
  - Valuation should estimate value related only to the physical flows (e.g. fish) harvested for non-recreational, consumptive use as inputs to supply chains.
  - Measurement boundaries for provisioning services are described in chapter 6.
  - All harvested biomass is within scope of the production boundary of the SNA; exchange values for relevant products are included in current measures of economic production.
  - Valuation of ecosystem services focuses on identifying the contribution of the ecosystem to biomass product values, which are based on quantities traded, market prices and input costs.
  - Subsistence production:
    - Significant flows may exist where outputs are not sold but directly consumed by households (including non-timber forest products).
    - Following SNA concepts, production associated with these activities should be included in national accounts estimates of output, with exchange values estimated on the basis of prices of similar goods sold on markets.
    - There would then be an associated ecosystem services contribution to the recorded output.
    - Methods for estimating biomass provisioning services values can be used for valuation of ecosystem services associated with subsistence production and consumption on the basis of estimated market prices.

*Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/manuals-and-guides/2025/english/seeaeaea.pdf*

### 9.70 There is a wide range of regulating and maintenance services. In some cases, the

### seeaeaea - 9.70 There is a wide range of regulating and maintenance services. In some cases, the

### Regulating and maintenance services: characteristics and valuation approaches
- Regulating and maintenance services can be:
  - Inputs to SNA benefits (example: soil erosion control as an input to agricultural production).
  - Contributions to non-SNA benefits (example: water purification services improving human health).
- Market observation and measurement challenges:
  - Few, if any, distinct markets exist for most regulating and maintenance services.
  - Identifying relative contributions within existing market prices is likely to be challenging.
  - Supply exhibits considerable variation owing to local contexts; measurement of flows in biophysical terms requires biophysical modelling at relatively fine spatial scales.
- Common monetary valuation methods:
  - Cost-based methods: averting behaviour, replacement cost, avoided damages.
  - Market-based observations where available: payments for ecosystem services schemes, emission trading schemes (limitations exist depending on institutional arrangements and how quantities are quantified, e.g., management actions used as proxies).
- Risk- and likelihood-dependent services:
  - For services mitigating extreme events (e.g., coastal protection), the service flow depends on the likelihood of damaging events and the expected damage; if no expected damage, no flow of the mitigation service is recorded.
  - The likelihood of occurrence, potential for damages, and extent to which ecosystems reduce those damages affect the service value.
- Cultural services valuation:
  - Demand/consumption perspective is generally necessary.
  - Recreation: revealed preference methods based on the travel cost method, including payments for entry or related services.
  - Visual amenity and local recreation: hedonic pricing (e.g., local house prices).
  - Residual value approaches can estimate ecosystem services as inputs to businesses (e.g., island resorts, canoe hiring firms); cultural ecosystem services recorded as used by households and any ecosystem-service component of payments to businesses recorded as supplementary items in the SUT.

### Spatial variation in values — drivers and implications (Sections 9.5, 9.5.1)
- Spatial variation arises because:
  - Physical level of service provision varies spatially (example: carbon sequestration varying with hill aspect).
  - Proximity to human populations affects recreation-related services (example: a lake near a town vs. an ecologically identical remote lake).
  - “Distance decay” in values over space is a persistent determinant.
  - Differences in access and property rights (institutional context).
  - Underlying preference heterogeneity across populations.
- Consequences for accounting and policy use:
  - Failure to account for location influence frequently leads to significant error.
  - Much existing valuation data are fragmented (specific services over large areas, multiple services in confined areas, or values linked to specific events).
  - Reconciling and utilizing existing studies to obtain valid exchange-value estimates at large accounting scales is a major challenge.
  - If spatial variation cannot be adequately accounted for, some accounting applications may not be appropriate.
  - Ongoing expansion of spatially explicit primary valuations is required to minimize reliance on primary data from countries with different economic and institutional contexts.
  - Many primary valuations were not designed to estimate exchange values for ecosystem accounting; differences in valuation techniques and assumptions must be considered (see section 9.3).

### Value transfer techniques and methods for incorporating spatial variation (Section 9.5.2)
- Overview:
  - Value transfer (also called benefit transfer in literature) techniques enable using data from specific locations to estimate monetary values in other locations.
  - Two main approaches: unit value transfers and value function transfers (value function transfers include meta-analysis and other subtypes).
- Unit value transfer:
  - Uses a single estimate (or central tendency of several estimates) per common measurement unit (e.g., hectares, tons, visits).
  - Limited validity when differences between source and target locations exist; provides little internal capacity to account for differences.
  - Examples of factors causing cross-location differences:
    - Physical characteristics of sites (e.g., differing recreation opportunities, angling).
    - Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics (income, educational attainment, age).
    - Variation in population preferences.
    - Variation in institutional context governing access, use, duties.
    - Distance between user and supplying ecosystem asset and other geospatial differences (note: effect of distance varies by service; global climate regulation benefits emerge irrespective of distance, water purification benefits accrue only to people close to or downstream of the supplying ecosystem).
    - Variation in availability of substitutes and complements (example: recreational substitutes influencing value of preventing water quality decline).
    - Differences across countries reflected in spatial and temporal variation in purchasing power.
  - Unadjusted unit value transfer acts as a simple scaling factor for PSUT changes; useful for low-accuracy purposes but risks generalization errors and requires confidence ranges.
  - Adjustments commonly made for income per capita and income elasticities; meta-studies indicate income per capita adjustment is significant, especially when using primary data from another country.
- Value function transfer:
  - More sophisticated; can be grouped into four primary categories by how value functions are estimated:
    1. Meta-analysis of prior valuation studies to estimate a value function.
    2. Function estimated from a primary research study in one location and applied elsewhere.
    3. “Umbrella” function from primary data across multiple locations in a region (value generalization), reducing out-of-sample problems.
    4. Structural value transfer (preference calibration) combining multiple prior studies using a utility-theoretic structure.
  - Meta-analysis and meta-regression value transfer:
    - Uses information from many primary studies to estimate functional relationships predicting values as a function of site and spatial characteristics, population affected, and statistical methods used.
    - Provides a range of values for new applications depending on embedded characteristics.
    - Suited to developing estimates for additional sites and larger scales, including national-level estimates.
    - Must recognize cross-country variations and carefully select and code studies to ensure welfare consistency and commodity consistency.
    - In meta-analytic transfers using studies from outside the EAA, adjust for jurisdictional differences affecting access and use rights.
- Method quality considerations:
  - The ability of value transfer methods to capture spatial variation and their accuracy depends on the number, depth, and quality of spatially explicit primary valuation studies, which vary by ecosystem and service type.
  - Example: many recreational-use studies exist; fewer studies on the value of wetlands.
  - Different valuation studies often rest on different assumptions, valuation concepts, and methods; using the SEEA EA framework through official statistics is recommended to develop consistently measured values across ecosystem services and locations.
  - Coordination between monetary valuation studies and physical data on ecosystem extent, condition, and service flows is highly recommended to ensure consistent spatial differentiation and supply–use context understanding.

*Source: System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (excerpts, sections 9.70–9.86).*

### 9.89 When considering the direct applicability of existing value transfer research and

### seeaeaea - 9.89 When considering the direct applicability of existing value transfer research and

### Applicability of value transfer research to environmental accounting (paragraphs 9.89–9.90)
- Much (although not all) of the available material in the value transfer literature is based on stated preference methods.  
- Stated preference methods establish hypothetical markets to quantify welfare values of changes in non-marketed ecosystem condition and/or services.  
- For accounting purposes, it is necessary to simulate exchange values by combining these stated preference functions with ecosystem services supply/cost functions.  
- Simulating exchange values requires the definition of credible institutional conditions for a market for the ecosystem in question (Ostrom, 2010; Barton and others, 2019).  
- Accounting principles state that accounting-compatible prices should reflect current or feasible market institutions. Compilers should therefore recognize that transferring or generalizing valuation estimates from actual or hypothetical markets to locations without markets may potentially contravene national accounting principles.  
- Care should be taken where market simulation contradicts existing rights regimes; simulated exchange values and monetary accounts may be perceived as invalid by local rights holders. This is particularly significant for ecosystems with open access or common property rights (e.g. community fisheries and forests, communal green spaces).  
- Location-based valuation of all ecosystem services is a clear-cut conceptual ideal. Rapid increases in spatial data availability and advances in valuation methodologies will make this more possible in the future.  
- Well-researched value transfer techniques exist for use in ecosystem accounting that can utilize available primary valuation studies. Further testing and best practice guidelines on defining credible market exchange conditions for value transfers should be part of the SEEA EA research and development agenda.  
- Clear documentation of data sources and of the methods and assumptions applied in forming aggregate values to be entered into the accounts is required to support appropriate use and interpretation of monetary estimates and to provide a sound basis for further research and development of data.

### Purpose and scope of the monetary ecosystem asset account (paragraphs 10.1–10.5)
- The monetary ecosystem asset account records a monetary value of ecosystem assets in terms of the NPV of the ecosystem services supplied by the asset.  
- Monetary estimates are compiled following the NPV principles described in chapter 8 and using the exchange value concept.  
- These estimates provide a measure of exchange value related to the scope of ecosystem services recorded in the ecosystem services flow account and cannot be interpreted as reflecting a complete or universal measure of the value of nature.  
- The account records changes in monetary value of ecosystem assets over an accounting period, including changes due to ecosystem degradation, ecosystem enhancement, ecosystem conversions and revaluations.  
- Monetary ecosystem asset estimates can support discussion of the relative significance of different ecosystem assets and ecosystem types, and can be combined with monetary valuations of other types of assets (for example, produced assets) to provide broader assessments of net wealth (see UNEP (2018); World Bank (2018)).  
- Measures of ecosystem assets in monetary terms may be related to socioeconomic drivers of change (e.g. changes in economic activity and demographic trends) and, together with physical asset data (e.g. measures of ecosystem condition), may be used as part of an assessment of the sustainability of ecosystem service flows.  
- Monetary measures focus on future flows of ecosystem services and can support project design and monitoring requirements.  
- Monetary measures alone are not sufficient for analysis of non-marginal changes, ecological thresholds, or boundaries; the ecosystem accounting system links physical data on extent and condition with service flows, capacity, and monetary values.  
- Measures of ecosystem degradation in monetary terms are particularly relevant relative to measures of economic activity such as industry value added; the derivation of degradation-adjusted income measures is explained in chapter 11.

### Structure of the monetary ecosystem asset account (paragraphs 10.6–10.12)
- The monetary ecosystem asset account records monetary values of all ecosystem assets within an EAA at the beginning (opening) and end (closing) of each accounting period, and changes over the accounting period.  
- Changes in monetary value are separated into five broad types: ecosystem enhancement, ecosystem degradation, ecosystem conversions, other changes in the volume of ecosystem assets, and revaluations as a result of price changes.  
- The account frames an individual ecosystem asset as a single entity reflecting the NPV of the set of ecosystem services it supplies (consistent with measurement framing for extent and condition).  
- In practice, the value of an ecosystem asset is obtained by estimating the NPV of each ecosystem service supplied by the asset separately and considering key linkages among services and assets to the extent possible. Appendix A10.1 explains reconciliation of service-specific NPV estimates and changes in ecosystem asset values.  
- Opening and closing values derive from the NPV of ecosystem services for a given ecosystem type based on chapter 8 concepts and the approach in section 10.3; monetary service values come from the ecosystem services flow account in monetary terms (chapter 9).  
- Entries for ecosystem degradation and enhancement involve assessing change in NPV and comparing with change in condition as recorded in the ecosystem condition account (chapter 5) applying the definitions of degradation and enhancement.  
- Entries for ecosystem conversions build on entries in the ecosystem extent account (chapter 4); additions and reductions in physical terms align with monetary entries under ecosystem conversions.  
- Entries for other changes in volume and revaluations are based on specific information concerning those changes. Appendix A10.1 provides a worked example.

### Accounting presentation and aggregation (paragraphs 10.13–10.14 and Table 10.1)
- Asset accounts can be compiled for individual ecosystem assets (e.g. a specific grassland), for all ecosystem assets of a single ecosystem type (e.g. T4.1 trophic savannas), or for various EAAs (e.g. a country, large administrative area, or catchment) including multiple ecosystem assets of different types.  
- Depending on data availability, some accounting entries may be combined by netting changes in value (e.g. net ecosystem conversions rather than separate additions and reductions).  
- Multiple potential entries over an accounting period may reflect combinations of enhancement, degradation and other changes; distinguishing entries relies on compiler judgment, but net change should be bounded by opening and closing values and linked to physical measures in extent and condition accounts.  
- Table 10.1 presents the basic accounting structure for the monetary ecosystem asset account (currency units) classified by ecosystem type using selected EFGs from IUCN GET (see chap. 3), and includes line items: Opening value; Ecosystem enhancement; Ecosystem degradation; Ecosystem conversions (Additions, Reductions); Other changes in volume of ecosystem assets (Catastrophic losses, Reappraisals); Revaluations; Net change in value; Closing value.

### Ecosystem enhancement: definition, measurement and links to activity (paragraphs 10.15–10.20)
- Ecosystem enhancement is the increase in value of an ecosystem asset over an accounting period associated with an improvement in condition during that period, shown by a rise in the NPV of expected future returns of the services supplied.  
- Enhancement includes effects of activities (including reduced harmful activities) that improve condition beyond maintenance, and may arise from natural/unmanaged improvements in condition. "There is not a linear relationship between changes in condition and future flows of ecosystem services."  
- Not all increases in value are enhancement: increases due to changes in expected demand should be recorded as upward reappraisals; increases due solely to movements in unit prices should be recorded as revaluations.  
- Enhancement is measured in relation to ecosystem extent recorded at the beginning of the accounting period; where extent changes (conversion to another ecosystem type), record under "ecosystem conversions".  
- Three activity types within enhancement context: restoration (re-establish pre-existing structure and function, including biotic integrity), rehabilitation (reinstate ecosystem functionality with focus on supplying a range of services), and reclamation (return degraded land to a useful state). Where these activities result in a change in ecosystem type during the accounting period, increases should be recorded under ecosystem conversions.  
- Recorded changes in extent, condition and asset value can be compared with estimates of expenditure and other measures of human input (e.g. volunteer hours), but there should be no prior expectation that changes in NPV will equal expenditure levels. Data on enhancement may complement expenditure measures and indicate broader future returns.  
- There is a connection to measurement of land improvements as gross fixed capital formation in the SNA and to environmental protection and resource management expenditure in the SEEA Central Framework; interest may exist in comparing asset value changes associated with environmental activities with data on ownership of ecosystem assets.

### Ecosystem degradation: definition, measurement and boundaries (paragraphs 10.21–10.24)
- Ecosystem degradation is the decrease in value of an ecosystem asset over an accounting period associated with a decline in condition during that period, shown by a fall in the NPV of expected future returns of services supplied.  
- Degradation results from both managed and unmanaged declines in condition.  
- Not all decreases in value are degradation: focus is on decreases resulting from declines in condition that can be reasonably expected to decrease future physical flows of services given current and expected management and use and environmental variation.  
- Declines in condition may arise from extraction and harvest and short- and long-term effects of pollution and emissions. For harvesting/extraction (e.g. grazing), assessment of decline should consider appropriate scale and time frame relative to regeneration rates; only extraction at rates above regeneration should be regarded as contributing to degradation.  
- Decreases due to large-scale, discrete, recognizable events causing significant loss in condition should be recorded as catastrophic losses. Decreases attributable to changes in expected demand should be recorded as downward reappraisals. Decreases due solely to movements in unit prices should be recorded as revaluations.

*Source: seeaeaea - 9.89 When considering the direct applicability of existing value transfer research and (PDF chapter/section).*

### 10.25 Ecosystem degradation is measured in relation to the extent of an ecosystem

### 10.25 Ecosystem degradation is measured in relation to the extent of an ecosystem

### Measurement and recording of ecosystem degradation
- Ecosystem degradation is measured in relation to the extent of an ecosystem asset recorded at the beginning of the accounting period.
- Where there are changes in the extent of an ecosystem asset (change (conversion) from one ecosystem type to another during an accounting period), a separate recording of that change should be undertaken and entered under the item “ecosystem conversions”.
- The measurement of ecosystem degradation reveals the loss of future flows of ecosystems services but does not capture wider economic and social impacts of declines in ecosystem condition (examples: losses of farm incomes and employment opportunities in rural communities).
- Analysis of wider impacts can be supported by data from the ecosystem accounts together with other data (for example, national accounts and labour-force statistics).
- Measurement of ecosystem degradation can be undertaken without regard to legal or economic ownership of the asset; however, attribution of the cost of degradation to an economic unit and institutional sector may be necessary for integration into the SNA institutional sector accounts (approaches discussed in chapters 11 and 12).

### Relationship to depletion and scope differences
- SEEA Central Framework definition referenced: depletion of natural resources (physical terms) = “the decrease in the quantity of the stock of a natural resource over an accounting period that is due to the extraction of the natural resource by economic units occurring at a level greater than that of regeneration” (Central Framework, para. 5.76).
- Depletion is retained to refer solely to the cost of using up natural resources and is narrower in scope than ecosystem degradation because it is related only to the loss of future provisioning services.
- An economy-wide measure of depletion is broader in scope to the extent that it includes declines due to extraction in the NPV of the stock of non-renewable resources (in particular mineral and energy resources), since those resources fall outside the scope of ecosystem assets.

### Ecosystem conversions (10.2.4)
- Definition: ecosystem conversions = change in ecosystem type at a given location involving a distinct and persistent change in ecological structure, composition and function, reflected in supply of a different set of ecosystem services and different expected future returns.
- Physical recording:
  - An ecosystem conversion during the accounting period should be recorded as a change in ecosystem extent (e.g. change from shrubland to cropland), following chapter 4 guidance.
  - In the ecosystem extent account, an increase in the area of one ecosystem type and a decrease in the area of another at a given location nets to zero.
  - An ecosystem conversion may commonly apply only to part of an existing ecosystem asset.
- Temporal and scale considerations:
  - Assessment should be undertaken at an appropriate scale and over an appropriate time frame to assess effects of harvesting, extraction, or forest fires relative to regeneration rates.
  - Consideration of changes in ecosystem condition is relevant, as condition changes serve as an indicator of potential changes in ecosystem type.
- Monetary recording:
  - A decrease in value is recorded for the ecosystem type from which the area has been converted and an increase in value is recorded for the ecosystem type to which the area has been converted; entries recorded under “ecosystem conversions” in additions or reductions rows.
  - Across an EAA, there is no expectation that the value of expected future returns for additions and reductions will be offsetting; net monetary effect of conversions may be positive or negative depending on differences in expected ecosystem services.
- Additional reporting:
  - It may be of interest to present data on ecosystem conversions by reason for conversion where available (examples: agricultural expansion, increased urbanization, coastal mangrove destruction by hurricanes, reclamation of desert areas for grazing).

### Other changes in the volume of ecosystem assets (10.2.5)
- Concept:
  - “Other changes in volume” (SNA-defined) records changes in asset value between balance sheet dates not attributable to transactions or revaluations (see 2008 SNA, chap. 12).
  - In ecosystem accounting, other changes exclude (a) ecosystem enhancement, ecosystem degradation or ecosystem conversion and (b) changes solely due to changes in unit prices of ecosystem services.
  - Two main types: catastrophic losses and reappraisals.
- Catastrophic losses:
  - Decreases due to large-scale, discrete, and recognizable events causing significant declines in condition (structure, function or composition) and affecting future flows of ecosystem services in physical terms (examples include earthquakes, bushfires, cyclones, industrial disasters).
  - Effects may be temporary (ecosystem regains condition) or permanent (some services can no longer be supplied or accessed, e.g. due to regulatory changes).
  - If effects are significant enough for the ecosystem to be considered to have changed its type, record as an ecosystem conversion.
- Reappraisals:
  - Recorded when updated information permits reassessment of expected condition or future demand for ecosystem services such that expected pattern of future returns at end of accounting period differs from the pattern expected at start.
  - Examples: changes in demographic projections affecting future demand for ecosystem services; rezoning of land; changes in risk of extreme events.
  - Reappraisals concern changes in expectations and are materially different from improvements in data quality used to improve compiled estimates; incorporation of new information concerning expectations does not lead to revisions in previous estimates.
- Revisions due to source data or methods:
  - Where source data are improved or revised or where revised methods and classifications are adopted, changes should be applied consistently across all relevant accounting entries; as appropriate, revisions to past accounting entries should be made.
  - A separate accounting entry to distinguish revisions due to changes in source data is not required but documenting all revisions to accounts is strongly recommended for data quality assessment purposes.

### Revaluations (10.2.6)
- Definition:
  - Revaluations = changes in value of ecosystem assets over an accounting period due solely to movements in the unit prices of ecosystem services that underpin the derivation of the NPV of those assets.
  - Changes in asset value in response to change in quantity or quality of future flows of ecosystem services are not revaluations and should be recorded as ecosystem enhancement, ecosystem degradation, ecosystem conversion or under other changes in volume.
- Nature of holding gains:
  - Revaluations reflect nominal holding gains over an accounting period.
  - There may be interest in decomposing gains into neutral holding gains (nominal gains associated with general inflation) and real holding gains.
  - Holding gains may be positive or negative since nominal gains may be greater or less than the general rate of inflation.
- Incorporation of parameter assumptions:
  - Revaluations should incorporate changes due to changes in assumptions used to estimate NPVs, such as the discount rate, to the extent these effects can be isolated.
  - Changes in estimated values due to changes in methods are treated as revisions.

### Approaches to valuing ecosystem assets (10.3 and 10.3.1 General approach)
- NPV approach:
  - The NPV approach to valuation of ecosystem assets is applied at the level of individual ecosystem services; discounted values for each service are aggregated to derive the monetary value of the ecosystem asset.
  - Where service values are based on observed market prices for associated benefits (e.g. resource rent method), costs incurred in supplying services are excluded so values reflect only the contribution of the ecosystem.
  - Each ecosystem service is considered separable if (a) it can be measured distinctly (mutually exclusive) and (b) it represents a distinct flow between an ecosystem asset and a user.
  - While each service flow and its NPV are considered separable, inherent connections among ecosystem characteristics must be considered jointly when determining expected future returns for each service.
- Practical spatial considerations:
  - Measurement and valuation commonly use detailed spatial data, supporting measurement at individual ecosystem asset level; spatial attribution discussed in chapter 7.
  - If services are not attributable to a single asset, it remains possible to estimate NPV for each service and aggregate to determine total ecosystem asset value for an EAA.
  - Projections may be necessary at more aggregated scales (e.g. demography); where possible, estimation should be undertaken for smaller, sub-EAA spatial areas to recognize local variations (see sect. 10.3.6).
- Key components and factors:
  - The measurement of expected future returns involves consideration of five key factors: (a) scope and definition of returns; (b) valuation of returns; (c) future flows of ecosystem services in physical terms; (d) asset lives; and (e) expected institutional arrangements.
  - These factors are interconnected and require an iterative process to establish a clear and agreed basis for estimating expected future returns across multiple services.
- Discounting and transparency:
  - Discounting of expected future returns to present value is mathematically straightforward; selection of an appropriate discount rate is of considerable importance because it can significantly affect asset value and interpretation (discount rates discussed in section 10.3.7).
  - All assumptions used to underpin measures of ecosystem asset values and changes should be clearly documented.
- Uncertainty and ranges:
  - Standard practice is to record single point estimates in the accounts, but given the assumptions required for monetary valuation, it may be appropriate to provide a range of values under plausible alternative assumptions (example: different discount rates).
- Alignment with SNA and SEEA Central Framework:
  - The NPV approach described aligns with SNA and SEEA Central Framework, with main difference being aggregation of multiple future returns for a single asset value.
  - This alignment supports compilation of extended balance sheets that incorporate ecosystem assets alongside other asset classes (see chap. 11).
  - Because the approach aggregates individual ecosystem services, it should be possible to integrate Central Framework estimates for natural resources provided they can be matched to the relevant provisioning service and ecosystem asset; alternative valuations (for example, stumpage method for timber) can be incorporated.

### Scope and definition of returns (10.3.2)
- The scope of returns = set of ecosystem services included in valuation of an ecosystem asset.
- In practice, the set of services included should align with the services recorded in the monetary ecosystem services flow account for each ecosystem type (tables 9.1a and 9.1b), building on measurement in physical terms (chapters 6 and 7).
- Compilers should include a comprehensive range of ecosystem services to best reflect monetary value of the asset and its changes over time.

*Source: seeaeaea - 10.25 Ecosystem degradation is measured in relation to the extent of an ecosystem*

### 10.56  The  returns  included  in  the  NPV  calculation  refer  to  the  ecosystem  services

### 10.56 The returns included in the NPV calculation refer to the ecosystem services

### Scope and definition of returns
- Returns in the NPV calculation refer to the ecosystem services expected to be supplied by an ecosystem asset.
- Ecosystem services are the contributions of ecosystem assets to benefits and must be clearly distinguished from benefits (example: timber provisioning — ecosystem service = contribution of the ecosystem, e.g., valued using a stumpage value or resource rent; benefit = harvested timber sold by the forester).

### Inclusion and exclusion of flows in NPV
- The scope of ecosystem services included in the NPV may include flows of intermediate services (following chapter 6 treatments).
- Include:
  - Supply of intermediate services to other ecosystem assets.
- Deduct:
  - Use of intermediate services from other ecosystem assets.
- Exclude from the NPV of ecosystem assets:
  - Intermediate services that are supplied and used within an ecosystem asset (they net out).
  - Monetary value of abiotic flows, spatial functions and non-use values (these may be calculated separately and included as part of other environmental assets in the extended balance sheet described in chapter 11).

### Marine and spatial measurement boundaries
- For marine ecosystems, determine appropriate measurement boundary for fish stocks and aquatic resources when stocks may migrate through or straddle the EAA boundary (e.g., a country’s EEZ).
- Apply the measurement boundary for fish stocks defined in the SEEA Central Framework (sect. 5.9) for relevant provisioning services.

### Valuation of returns (exchange-value approach)
- Returns for each ecosystem service are valued based on exchange values consistent with chapters 8 and 9.
- If ecosystem service values are based on observed market prices for associated benefits (e.g., using the resource rent method), exclude costs incurred in supplying the ecosystem services so the value used considers only the contribution of the ecosystem.
- All other methods in chapter 9 estimate the ecosystem contribution directly and exclude costs of supply.

### Price assumptions for future returns
- Default approach: assume current period price (or an average of prices in recent accounting periods) will apply in future periods — appropriate default for ecosystem accounting.
- Do not assume constant prices when future price changes are well understood and sufficient information is available (for example, some climate change-related effects).

### Future flows of services in physical terms
- Future flow estimation must account for relationships among ecosystem services; separate measurement in the current period does not guarantee consistency of future projections.
- Example inconsistency: carbon sequestration assumed over infinite time while timber provisioning assumed to be fully depleted in 30 years with no regeneration.
- Future flow of services depends on:
  - Condition and regeneration of the ecosystem.
  - Future demand for ecosystem services.
- Example drivers for a forest’s air filtration services:
  - (a) extent and condition of the forest;
  - (b) expected level of pollutants;
  - (c) expected size and growth of the local population benefiting from air filtration services.
- It cannot be assumed that expected future flows will be ecologically sustainable (i.e., involve no loss of ecosystem condition).

### Use of models and data
- Compilers are not expected to develop comprehensive models of future demand and supply, but may use identifiable and quantifiable factors (e.g., population increases, legislation reducing pollution).
- Bioeconomic and similar models, where available, should be considered.
- Over time, time series of ecosystem accounts will help identify the most relevant factors.
- Logic chains for ecosystem services in appendix A6.1 may help frame relevant factors by service type.

### Socioeconomic and service-type considerations
- Expected socioeconomic context must be considered (demography, incomes, spatially relevant factors).
- Examples:
  - Recreation demand changes with increased accessibility.
  - Regulation reducing pollution reduces demand for air filtration services.
- Framing by service type:
  - Provisioning services: functions of natural resource and cultivated biological resource supply and demand.
  - Regulating and maintenance services: functions of changes in exposure to risks (pollution, floods, climate change).
  - Cultural services: driven by demand considerations including demographic changes, urban design, and trends in tourism and recreation.

### Interactions, degradation, and thresholds
- Anticipated degradation (e.g., forests degraded by high current use) affects regeneration rates and flows (e.g., wood provisioning declines over time).
- Overexploitation of resources (timber, soil, fish) can detrimentally impact supply of other ecosystem services; impacts may be delayed or subject to environmental thresholds.
- Chapter 6 measurement of ecosystem capacity provides input to these issues.
- Consider wider environmental changes (rainfall, temperature, ocean acidification) and, ideally, apply climate change-related model information.

### Accounting for changing expectations
- Indirect or delayed impacts on ecosystem condition can be incorporated if timing and magnitude are known.
- If evidence emerges gradually and expectations change, record the change in value associated with new expectations as a reappraisal of ecosystem asset value.

### Ecosystem asset life
- Asset life = period over which an ecosystem asset is expected to generate ecosystem services.
- Basis for estimates: condition of the asset and its capacity to supply the set of services considered.
- Possible assumptions:
  - Infinite asset life when use long into the future is expected.
  - Maximum asset life of 100 years as an alternative.
- Recommendation: base estimates on recent past patterns of ecosystem use unless strong evidence suggests otherwise.
- For NPV formula, apply the same asset life for all ecosystem services supplied by an individual ecosystem asset (asset life applies to the asset, not individual services).
- For ease, it may be appropriate to assume a single asset life for all ecosystem assets and services; an infinite asset life might be most appropriate.
- If some services cease after a particular time (e.g., after 30 years), entries for subsequent periods can be filled with zeros.

### Expected institutional arrangements
- Starting assumption: current institutional arrangements will continue.
- If change in arrangements is strongly expected and clearly understood, factor effects and expected timing into future returns estimates.
- Relevant institutional arrangements include natural resource management regimes, taxation, government conservation programmes, and markets for environmental services (e.g., carbon markets).

### Discounting
- Selection of a discount rate is required to derive NPV estimates; see appendix A5.2 of the SEEA Central Framework (“Discount rates”) for key issues.
- Distinction: individual/private discount rates versus social discount rates; descriptive versus prescriptive determination.
- For individual environmental assets (mineral, energy, timber), SEEA Central Framework aligns with SNA and uses marginal, private, market-based discount rates.
- Conceptual framing for SEEA EA:
  - Individual market-based discount rates should be applied for ecosystem services whose users are private economic units.
  - Social discount rates should be applied for ecosystem services that contribute to collective benefits (benefits received by groups of people or society generally).
- Selection of social discount rates should be based on rates specified in relevant government guidelines and actively used in government decision-making; if not available, compilers may consider long-term government bond rates.
- It is not expected that all countries use the same discount rate; consistent application of the conceptual framing supports comparability.
- Recommendation: use a constant discount rate over the asset’s life.
  - Alternative declining discount rates (hyperbolic, gamma, geometrically declining) are not recommended for ecosystem accounting due to theoretical and practical challenges.
- Ensure discount rate consistency with price assumptions:
  - If future returns are nominal, include allowance for expected inflation in the discount rate.
  - Most commonly, future returns are estimated in real terms and the discount rate should be in real terms (expected inflation measure likely economy-wide, e.g., GDP deflator).
- Compilers are encouraged to undertake sensitivity assessments of monetary valuations to alternative discount rates and publish such assessments in account documentation.

### Measuring changes in present value over an accounting period
- Changes in asset value over an accounting period (enhancement, degradation, conversions) depend on impacts on expected future returns.
- Valuation of such changes requires the NPV approach to ensure alignment between opening and closing valuations and valuations of changes.
- Appendix A10.1 presents a complete accounting for NPV and changes in NPV, highlighting relationships between:
  - changes in quantities of expected flows of ecosystem services;
  - changes in condition and extent of the ecosystem asset;
  - changes in prices of ecosystem assets with respect to each ecosystem service.
- Key conclusion: it is incorrect to use the unit price of the ecosystem service in the current period to value ecosystem assets and changes in those assets; relevant asset prices are a function of the NPV formula (expected future returns and discounting affect asset prices).
- Relationship between unit prices for ecosystem services and ecosystem asset prices is discussed in appendix A10.1 (and in connection with individual environmental assets in appendix A5.1 of the SEEA Central Framework).

*Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/manuals-and-guides/2025/english/seeaeaea.pdf*

### Introduction

### seeaeaea - Introduction

### Purpose and scope
- Explains steps for implementing an NPV approach to value ecosystem assets, deriving opening and closing values of ecosystem assets and consistent measures of ecosystem enhancement, degradation, conversions, other changes in volume and revaluations.
- Conceptual framing and definitions referenced to chapter 10.
- Uses a simple stylized example in the appendix; a more complete stylized example is presented in annex I that uses a larger number of ecosystem types and a 100-year asset life (note: the present appendix uses a five-year moving asset life for illustrative purposes).

### Stylized example: ecosystem area and services
- EAA covers 90 hectares (ha) composed of two ecosystem assets:
  - EA1 — forest: 50 ha at t0
  - EA2 — cropland: 40 ha at t0
- Assumption: extent of each ecosystem asset remains the same from t0 to t1; changes in ecosystem service flows are driven by changes in condition (degradation or enhancement) or changes in prices.
- Ecosystem services supplied:
  - Forest supplies ES1 Wood provisioning, ES2 Global climate regulation, ES3 Recreation-related.
  - Cropland supplies ES4 Crop provisioning.
- Spatial production areas (SPAs) of each ecosystem service coincide with respective ecosystem asset areas in this example.

### NPV valuation approach and key parameters
- NPV of future flows of each ecosystem service used to compute asset value Vt as described in section 10.3.
- Asset life used in this example: five years (moving asset life).
- Discount rate: 2 percent.
- Discount factors used (2 per cent discount rate, flows in the first year are discounted): 0.9800, 0.9604, 0.9412, 0.9224, 0.9039.
- General NPV expression (as given):
  - Vt = sum over i=1 to 4 and j=t+1 to 5 of ptij qtij (1 + rj)^(j-t)  (equation (1) as presented in the source text)
- Alternative expression used in decomposition:
  - Vt = sum_{i=1 to 4} p̄_ti Q_ti  (equation (2) as presented in the source text)
  - Change decomposition for each service i:
    - V1i – V0i = (p̄1i – p̄0i) Q1i + p̄0i (Q1i – Q0i)  (equation (3) as presented in the source text)
- Average discounted unit prices p̄_ti are derived as NPV divided by cumulative quantity over the asset life (analogue to SEEA Central Framework annex A5.1).

### Input data and example NPVs (t0 and t1)
- Asset life and flow years:
  - For t0: years 1 to 5 (used to compute V0)
  - For t1: years 2 to 6 (used to compute V1)
- Selected per-service totals and NPVs from tables A10.1.1 and A10.1.2:
  - At t0 (Total NPV V0):
    - ES1 Wood provisioning: Total NPV $3 633; average price p̄0 = $61
    - ES2 Global climate regulation: Total NPV $18 285; cumulative quantity Q0 = 720 tCO2; average price p̄0 = $25
    - ES3 Recreation-related: Total NPV $5 108; average price p̄0 = $5
    - ES4 Crop provisioning: Total NPV $2 182; average price p̄0 = $70
    - Total forest (ES1+ES2+ES3) = $27 026
    - Total cropland (ES4) = $2 182
    - Total EAA at t0: $29 208
  - At t1 (Total NPV V1):
    - ES1 Wood provisioning: Total NPV $3 188; average price p̄1 = $64
    - ES2 Global climate regulation: Total NPV $17 647; cumulative quantity Q1 = 670 tCO2; average price p̄1 = $26
    - ES3 Recreation-related: Total NPV $5 514; average price p̄1 = $5
    - ES4 Crop provisioning: Total NPV $2 467; average price p̄1 = $70
    - Total forest = $26 349
    - Total cropland = $2 467
    - Total EAA at t1: $28 816
  - Change in EAA value: $-392

- Example calculation illustration (ES2, climate regulation):
  - Year 1 at t0: 140 tons * $25 * 0.9800 = $3 430 (component of NPV)
  - Summing five years yields V0 for ES2 = $18 285
  - Average discounted unit price p̄0 for ES2 = V0/Q0 = $18 285 / 720 = $25.40 (as illustrated in text)

### Decomposition of change in NPV (price vs volume effects)
- Decomposition framing: define Vti = p̄_ti Q_ti; change in NPV for service i decomposed into price and volume effects (equation (3)).
- Note on weighting: two decomposition forms exist; the average of the two forms is used (consistent with SEEA Central Framework practice).
- Results of decomposition (table A10.1.3):
  - ES1 Wood provisioning:
    - Price effect: 177
    - Volume effect: -622
    - Total: -444
  - ES2 Global climate regulation:
    - Price effect: 655
    - Volume effect: -1 293
    - Total: -639
    - Noted driver: Q0 drops from 720 to 670 tCO2 (volume decline), while unit prices rise from $25 to $29 per ton across the five years in the projections leading to a positive price effect.
  - ES3 Recreation-related:
    - Price effect: 192
    - Volume effect: 215
    - Total: 406
  - ES4 Crop provisioning:
    - Price effect: 42
    - Volume effect: 228
    - Total: 270
  - Aggregate effects:
    - Total price effect: 1 027
    - Total volume effect: -1 419
    - Total change: -392 (exact decomposition; price effect + volume effect = total change)

### Ecosystem monetary asset account entries and allocation logic
- Opening and closing values for each ecosystem asset are the sums of NPVs of ecosystem services relevant to that asset (e.g., forest = ES1+ES2+ES3; cropland = ES4).
- Revaluations entry equals the price effect from the decomposition (price effect measures change due solely to change in average discounted price for each ecosystem service).
- Remaining change (volume effect) corresponds to changes in total quantity of expected future ecosystem services and is used to determine entries for ecosystem enhancement, degradation, reappraisals, and catastrophic losses depending on causes and definitions (per chapter 10).
- Treatment of a given volume effect considers:
  - (a) whether the volume effect is positive or negative;
  - (b) change in ecosystem condition over the accounting period; and
  - (c) change in... (text continues in subsequent sections describing allocation rules).
- Allocation caveat: in this simple example there is a one-to-one correspondence between ecosystem assets and areas providing services, simplifying allocation. In more complex settings, values of individual services would need to be apportioned to underlying ecosystem assets (e.g., prorating by area shares or using more complex allocation methods).

*Source: seeaeaea - Introduction (appendix A10.1) — System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting*

### Appendix A10.1: Application of the NPV method for valuing ecosystem assets/changes in ecosys. assets

### Appendix A10.1: Application of the NPV method for valuing ecosystem assets/changes in ecosys. assets

### Valuation framework and key principles
- NPV-based valuation: discounted unit prices (p_tij) multiplied by expected quantities (q_tij) summed over the life of the asset yield the NPV of each ecosystem service and the ecosystem asset.
- Treatment of volume effects depends jointly on changes in condition and demand (table A10.1.5 logic):
  - Volume up / Condition up / Demand up or down → Enhancement
  - Volume up / Condition down / Demand up → Upward reappraisal
  - Volume down / Condition down / Demand up or down → Degradation
  - Two combinations are impossible: Condition and Demand move in the same direction while Volume moves oppositely.
- Significant unexpected quantity shocks (e.g., uprooting of trees by a hurricane) can be recorded as catastrophic losses rather than degradation (A10.22).

### Worked example — monetary ecosystem asset account (summary figures)
- Opening stocks at t0:
  - Forest: 27 026 (currency units)
  - Cropland: 2 182 (currency units)
  - Total: 29 208 (currency units)
- Initial decomposition (no conversions) — Table A10.1.4:
  - Ecosystem enhancement: 282 (currency units)
  - Ecosystem degradation: -1 915 (currency units)
  - Reappraisals: 215 (currency units)
  - Revaluation: 1 0234 1 027
  - Net change in value: -677 285 -392
  - Closing stocks at t1:
    - Forest: 26 349 (currency units)
    - Cropland: 2 467 (currency units)
    - Total: 28 816 (currency units)
- Interpretation in example (selected service-level attributions):
  - ES1 Wood provisioning: volume effect -622 → condition also declines → recorded as degradation.
  - ES2 Global climate regulation: volume effect -1,293 → condition declines → degradation.
  - ES3 Recreation-related: volume effect +215 with declining condition → attributed to increased demand → upward reappraisal.
  - ES4 Crop provisioning: volume effect +282 with improving condition → ecosystem enhancement.
- Overall outcome: forest asset value declines, cropland asset value increases; net loss for the EAA: -392 (currency units) (A10.24).

### Decomposition with ecosystem conversions (area effect)
- When extent changes (ecosystem conversions), decompose change in NPV of each ecosystem service i into three exact effects (equation (5)):
  - Price effect: (–p1i – –p0i) * –q1i * a1i
  - Volume (intensity) effect: –p0i (–q1i – –q0i) a1i
  - Area effect: –p0i –q0i (a1i – a0i)
  - Full decomposition form shown as equation (5) and rearranged into explicit price, volume and area effect terms (A10.27–A10.29).
- Example adaptation: forest extent reduced by 2 ha converted to cropland (A10.26); all other expected quantities and unit prices held the same so total NPV for each service and total NPV remain unchanged, but component explanations change.
- Exact decomposition implemented as weighted averages of six algebraic formulations; weights applied to variable changes to derive area, price and volume effects (A10.30).

### Numerical decomposition results (three-factor) — Table A10.1.6 (currency units)
- ES1 Wood provisioning:
  - Area effect: -139
  - Volume effect: -482
  - Price effect: 177
  - Total: -444
- ES2 Global climate regulation:
  - Area effect: -733
  - Volume effect: -560
  - Price effect: 654
  - Total: -639
- ES3 Recreation-related services:
  - Area effect: -217
  - Volume effect: 431
  - Price effect: 192
  - Total: 406
- ES4 Crop provisioning:
  - Area effect: 113
  - Volume effect: 168
  - Price effect: 428
  - Total: 285
- Aggregate row:
  - Area effect: -976
  - Volume effect: -442
  - Price effect: 1 027
  - Total: -392

### Monetary ecosystem asset account with conversions — Table A10.1.7 (currency units)
- Opening stocks at t0:
  - Forest: 27 026
  - Cropland: 2 182
  - Total: 29 208
- Entries during period (with conversions):
  - Ecosystem enhancement: 168
  - Ecosystem degradation: -1 042
  - Ecosystem conversions:
    - Additions: 113
    - Reductions: -1 090
  - Reappraisals: 431
  - Revaluation: 1 0234 1 027
  - Net change in value: -677 285 -392
- Closing stocks at t1:
  - Forest: 26 349
  - Cropland: 2 467
  - Total: 28 816
- Note: compared with the no-conversions decomposition, part of the previous forest degradation (-1 915) is reallocated to a negative ecosystem conversion (-1 090) and higher reappraisals (431), with forest degradation reduced to -1 042; cropland enhancement correspondingly partitioned (A10.32–A10.33).

### Additional technical points and illustrative data
- Example SPA per-hectare calculation for global climate regulation:
  - Q0_2 = 720 tons of CO2 at t0; a0_2 = 50 ha → –q0i = 14.40 tons of CO2 per ha (A10.31).
- Marginal vs average asset prices:
  - NPV of the ecosystem asset (sum over services) is the unit price of the asset; basic measurement unit remains the individual ecosystem asset characterized by extent and condition (A10.34–A10.35).
  - Marginal asset price: change in NPV with respect to a marginal change in extent (e.g., 1 ha) may differ across parts of a large asset (edge vs centre) (A10.36).
  - Homogeneous supply assumption in the example implies marginal and average asset prices coincide (A10.37). In practice, heterogeneity suggests subdividing assets (e.g., 1 ha units) to align average and marginal prices where feasible (A10.38).
- Aggregation: approach can be applied at aggregate scale to value ecosystem types based on their bundle of services (A10.39).

*Source: Appendix A10.1, "Application of the NPV method for valuing ecosystem assets/changes in ecosys. assets", SEEA EA content unit.*

### 11.7  Compiling  extended  SUT  involves  combining  data  from  the  ecosystem  ser-

### 11.7 Compiling extended SUT involves combining data from the ecosystem services flow account in monetary terms described in chapter 9 with the standard SUT from the SNA

### Overview
- Extended SUT combine the monetary ecosystem services flow account (chapter 9) with the standard SUT from the SNA.
- They extend the production boundary and require explicit consideration of measurement boundaries between the economy and ecosystems to avoid double counting.
- Extended SUT present supply and use of ecosystem services as extensions to the standard SUT compiled following the SNA.

### Purposes of compiling extended SUT (section 11.8)
- To show the contribution of ecosystem services to the output and value added of different industries and the economy as a whole.
- To identify the share of economy-wide value added that is dependent on ecosystem services.
- To develop an understanding of the main users of ecosystem services and the relative contribution of ecosystem services to household and government final consumption expenditure.
- To describe ecosystem services as inputs to economic supply chains and to develop an understanding of ecosystem services-dependent industries.
- To integrate ecosystem services data into analytical and modelling tools (for example, input-output models and computable general equilibrium models) that use SUT as primary data sources.

### Key aspects of extending the standard SUT to incorporate ecosystem services (sections 11.9–11.14)
- Dimension expansion:
  - The set of goods and services in scope is broader; dimensions of the standard SUT must increase, usually by adding new rows (each additional row representing an additional ecosystem service).
  - Note: SUT need not be square matrices; standard I-O matrix algebra has been adapted to allow non-square SUT data to be used in I-O analysis; resulting I-O tables are square matrices.
- Distinction and recording:
  - Ecosystem services must be clearly distinguished from products already recorded in the standard SUT.
  - For products to which ecosystem services are direct inputs (SNA benefits), ecosystem services are recorded as the intermediate consumption of the associated user (example: timber biomass provisioning recorded as additional intermediate consumption by forestry units).
  - For ecosystem services that contribute to non-SNA benefits (no associated products), it is sufficient to record the supply of the relevant ecosystem service and its use by the relevant economic unit (see chapter 6 guidance) — example: air filtration services.
- Intermediate ecosystem services:
  - It is possible to include intermediate services supplied by ecosystems (example: pollination services) as additional rows to recognize flows as inputs to generation of associated final ecosystem services (e.g., biomass accumulation of crops).
  - Intermediate services must be recorded as used by ecosystem assets, not as inputs to economic units.
- Columns for supply source:
  - Columns must be added to reflect the source of supply of ecosystem services: ecosystem assets (grouped by ecosystem type) are treated as additional producing units alongside industries (agriculture, manufacturing, etc.).
- Value added partitioning:
  - Where ecosystem services are inputs to SNA benefits, the contribution of ecosystem services is deducted from the using industry and shown as the output and operating surplus of the supplying ecosystem asset.

### Distinction from environmentally extended input-output tables (EE-IOTs) (section 11.15)
- EE-IOTs can incorporate flows of individual ecosystem services using methods similar to GHG emissions, water use, or solid waste.
- However, EE-IOTs do not inherently change or extend the SNA production boundary; extended SUT do extend the production boundary and the supply chains recording links between the economy and ecosystems.

### Extended balance sheets — purpose and uses (sections 11.16–11.19)
- Extended balance sheets augment SNA economic accounts by including monetary values of ecosystem assets alongside produced and financial assets and liabilities.
- They align with wealth-accounting initiatives and support:
  - Understanding changing composition of wealth.
  - Identifying imbalances in stocks of wealth.
  - Analysing productivity.
  - Assessing returns on investment.
- Caution: Presenting economic and ecosystem assets side by side may be interpreted as implying substitutability of assets. In practice, reflection of future shortages and changing relative asset prices in estimated asset prices will be limited by the unpredictability of future availability and interactions of assets.

### Compiling extended balance sheets — scope and structure (sections 11.20–11.25)
- Compilation involves complementing opening and closing values of ecosystem assets (chapter 10) with SNA balance sheet values (2008 SNA, chap. 13).
- Overlaps may occur between SNA asset values and ecosystem asset values (e.g., biological resources and land); clear treatments are required to avoid double counting.
- Approach presented (table 11.2):
  - Distinguish environmental assets from produced assets, other non-produced (non-environmental) assets, and financial assets/liabilities.
  - Within environmental assets, distinguish:
    - Ecosystem asset values linked to ecosystem types at the level of main realms (terrestrial, freshwater, marine, subterranean).
    - Values of other environmental assets (land, renewable energy resources, cultivated biological resources, water resources, mineral and energy resources, atmospheric systems).
  - Ecosystem asset values align with the monetary ecosystem asset account (table 10.1); other environmental asset values generally align with SNA values for relevant classes, with SEEA Central Framework treatments.
- Geographic scope:
  - Extended balance sheets are most commonly compiled at national level using the country’s national balance sheet from the SNA; geographical scope defined by the country’s economic territory (broadly limited to land area and marine areas within the EEZ).
  - Alternative geographic scopes (wider marine coverage or subnational focus) are conceptually possible.

### Aligning ecosystem asset values with SNA asset values (sections 11.26–11.28)
- Starting point: SNA definition of assets and the SEEA Central Framework overview:
  - The scope of valuation is limited to benefits that accrue to economic owners — institutional units entitled to claim benefits by virtue of accepting associated risks.
  - An asset is a store of value representing a benefit or series of benefits accruing to the economic owner by holding or using the entity over a period of time (Central Framework, para. 5.32).
- Aggregate inclusion challenges:
  - Aggregating environmental asset values for a country implies attribution of environmental assets to the country and requires identification of a set of benefits to establish total value.
  - Focus is on aligning the extended set of benefits with relevant asset classes.
  - Ownership issues for ecosystem assets are addressed in section 11.3.4.
- Practical scope of SNA benefits:
  - Although SNA defines benefits broadly (“a gain or positive utility arising from economic production, consumption or accumulation” — 2008 SNA, para. 3.19), in practice SNA scope with respect to environmental asset benefits is limited.

### Structure of an extended balance sheet (table 11.2 summary)
- Assets and monetary value columns: Opening / Closing
- Assets include:
  - Produced assets: Fixed assets (Dwellings; Other buildings and structures; Machinery and equipment; Weapons systems; Intellectual property products), Inventories, Valuables.
  - Environmental assets — ecosystems:
    - Terrestrial ecosystems (IUCN GET EFG T1–T7) (includes SNA value of natural timber resources and other non-produced biota).
    - Freshwater ecosystems (IUCN GET EFG F1–FM1) (includes SNA value of natural aquatic resources and other non-produced biota) (excludes the value of water resources).
    - Marine ecosystems (IUCN GET EFG M1–MFT1) (includes SNA value of natural aquatic resources and other non-produced biota).
    - Subterranean ecosystems (IUCN GET S1–SM1).
  - Environmental assets — other:
    - Cultivated biological resources (Fixed assets; Work in progress (inventories)).
    - Land (as provision of space) (includes SNA value of land under buildings).
    - Renewable energy resources.
    - Water resources.
    - Mineral and energy resources.
    - Atmospheric systems (includes SNA value of the radio spectrum).
  - Other non-produced assets: Contracts, leases and licences; Goodwill and marketing assets.
  - Financial assets; Financial liabilities; Net worth.
- Notes:
  - The scope of produced assets presented differs from the SNA, as cultivated biological resources are included under other environmental assets.
  - Some entries (renewable energy resources; water resources; inventories) are boundary cases requiring specific measurement conventions.

*Source: seeaeaea - 11.7  Compiling  extended  SUT  involves  combining  data  from  the  ecosystem  services  flow  account  in  monetary  terms  described  in  chapter 9  with  the  standard  SUT  from  the  SNA (seeaeaea - 11.7 Compiling extended SUT involves combining data from the ecosystem services flow account in monetary terms described in chapter 9 with the standard SUT from the SNA - seeaeaea.pdf).*

### section 11.3.3.

### section 11.3.3.

### Scope and extensions to SNA balance sheets
- 11.29: Ecosystem accounting includes a broader set of benefits through recognition of ecosystem services that contribute to non-SNA benefits. Inclusion of the monetary value of such ecosystem services increases the value of environmental assets relative to the SNA and thereby extends the balance sheet relative to the scope of the SNA. Nonetheless, this inclusion does not provide a measure that encompasses all aspects of value or wealth.
- 11.30: To clarify extensions to the SNA balance sheets motivated by scope of benefits, the treatment of a range of SNA assets with respect to incorporating ecosystem assets is described. In practice, since relatively few countries compile full SNA balance sheets of non-produced assets, these considerations together with SEEA Central Framework guidance are relevant in developing or refining such balance sheets.

### Treatment of biological resources (11.31–11.34)
- 11.31: Natural (non-cultivated) biological resources are in scope of both ecosystem assets and SNA non-produced assets. Values of natural timber and aquatic and other biological resources (e.g. wild animals and non-wood forest products) are estimated in terms of expected future rates of harvest and relevant prices for these provisioning services. In the extended balance sheet, the value of natural biological resources is included within the value of the relevant ecosystem asset (for example, natural timber resources included within the broader value of forest ecosystems).
- 11.32: Cultivated biological resources (annual crops; plantations such as timber, orchards, vineyards; livestock for slaughter, breeding or ongoing production; and aquaculture) are produced assets and are classified as either inventories (work in progress) or fixed assets. The SNA value for these resources is included in the scope of environmental assets as defined in the SEEA Central Framework.
- 11.33: SNA values of cultivated biological resources relate only to the stock present on the date of the balance sheet (e.g. the number of cattle or volume of standing timber on 31 December). Two cases:
  - For crops and livestock, the balance sheet value is separable from the value of any associated land. Because ecosystem services reflect land’s contribution to growth of crops or livestock, in the extended balance sheet the value of cultivated crops and livestock are recorded under “other environmental assets” separately from the value of the associated ecosystem asset (e.g. pastures, cultivated land), which encompasses the NPV of expected biomass provisioning services.
  - For cultivated timber, see 11.34.
- 11.34: The SNA balance sheet value for cultivated timber is estimated as the discounted “future proceeds of selling the timber at current prices after deducting the expenses of bringing the timber to maturity” (2008 SNA, para. 13.41). Expenses should incorporate capital costs associated with inputs of produced assets and forest land (see SEEA Central Framework, sect. 5.8). This value overlaps with the NPV of wood provisioning services, although the latter will be higher because it includes (a) the value of the contribution of land; and (b) the value of future timber harvests beyond the current rotation. Consequently, to ensure alignment between values recorded in the extended balance sheet and monetary ecosystem asset account, the work-in-progress value of cultivated timber resources should not be recorded as part of other environmental assets.
  - Footnote: Work in progress on cultivated biological resources consists of output that is not yet sufficiently mature to be in a state in which it is normally supplied to other institutional units (2008 SNA, para. 10.140).

### Treatment of mineral and energy resources; peat (11.35–11.36)
- 11.35: Mineral and energy resources (including shallow mineral resources such as sand and gravel) are defined in the SNA and SEEA Central Framework but are not considered part of ecosystem assets since their benefits are not the result of current ecosystem processes. They are recorded in the extended balance sheet under other environmental assets. By convention, this class excludes energy from renewable sources (see below).
- 11.36: Peat resources deserve special note. Peatlands are terrestrial ecosystems supplying ecosystem services (including global climate regulation and water purification). In this balance sheet, the value of peatlands is partitioned: the value of future flows of ecosystem services included as part of terrestrial ecosystems; the value associated with use of peat as a fossil fuel resource included as part of mineral and energy resources.

### Treatment of energy from renewable sources (11.37–11.39)
- 11.37: Renewable energy sources (such as wind and solar) cannot be exhausted like fossil energy resources and are not regenerated like biological resources. In accounting terms there is no physical stock of renewable sources of energy that can be used up or sold.
- 11.38: The monetary value associated with ongoing capture of wind and solar energy can be considered embedded in the values of the associated area (e.g. land), reflecting location characteristics. In the extended balance sheet, by convention, the value of the location (including both terrestrial and marine locations) linked to capture of wind and solar energy should be included in the value of land (as provision of space).
- 11.39: For hydroelectric energy, the monetary value associated with capture of energy can be considered embedded in values of the surrounding area incorporating water resources and land formations. For geothermal energy, relevant values should be included under deep geological systems. It is recommended that the value associated with energy from renewable sources be separately recorded in the extended balance sheet and calculated using the NPV of the associated abiotic flows.

### Treatment of inland water resources and water valuation (11.40–11.41)
- 11.40: The SNA recognizes valuation of water resources where “surface and groundwater resources [are] used for extraction to the extent that their scarcity leads to the enforcement of ownership or use rights, market valuation and some measure of economic control” (2008 SNA, para. 10.184). It is recommended that this value be recorded separately from the value of ecosystem services of freshwater ecosystems.
- 11.41: Water supply is treated as an abiotic flow; its value is therefore recorded as part of other environmental assets, as water resources, rather than associated with the terrestrial or freshwater ecosystem asset to which it is most directly connected (e.g. based on the location of a bore or well). The value of water resources is limited to their use as input to economic activity and human consumption. Valuation of water poses measurement challenges and requires alignment of methods and scope based on SNA, SEEA Central Framework and SEEA EA guidance.

### Treatment of land, atmosphere, high seas, permits and licences (11.42–11.47)
- 11.42–11.44 (land):
  - 11.42: A key function of land is to provide space; land defines locations for economic and other activity and is a fundamental input to economic activity with significant value in many locations.
  - 11.43: Provision of space is not considered an ecosystem service; consequently, value of ecosystem assets, particularly terrestrial ecosystems, excludes value of provision of space. Total value of an area of land may be greater than value of aggregated ecosystem services. Urban ecosystems and cultivated land are noteworthy: for urban ecosystems, provision of space may be predominant component; for cultivated land, provisioning ecosystem services may be closer to total market value, but ecosystem asset value may be larger through inclusion of non-provisioning services (e.g. water regulation). For government-owned or public land, SNA may record no value; in such cases ecosystem asset value reflects the total value of the area for accounting purposes.
  - 11.44: In the extended balance sheet, aggregated NPV of ecosystem services is recorded against the relevant ecosystem type and, where relevant, the additional value of land in terms of provision of space is recorded as a separate asset class under other environmental assets. In many cases (notably urban ecosystems and cultivated land) it will be necessary to partition the SNA-recorded land value to extract the component attributable to ecosystem services (e.g. amenity services embodied in land values).
- 11.45–11.46 (atmosphere and high seas):
  - 11.45: The scope of ecosystem assets excludes the atmosphere and generally excludes marine areas beyond the EEZ for national-level accounting. Values of these environmental assets are therefore not captured in ecosystem asset values. SNA values relevant to these assets include the radio spectrum and fish stocks on the high seas where ownership rights may exist. The value of the radio spectrum (as defined in the SNA) should be included under atmospheric systems in table 11.2 and the value of fish stocks on the high seas that satisfy the SNA definition of economic assets should be included under marine ecosystems.
  - 11.46: An extended balance sheet could alternatively incorporate a wider range of ecosystem assets such as marine areas beyond the EEZ and the atmosphere, recognizing roles such as ozone layer protection and marine ecosystems in regulating global climate.
- 11.47 (permits and licences):
  - In the SNA, value of permits and licences associated with use of natural resources (for example, resource leases and transferable quotas) is recorded separately from value of underlying resource. Recording this value separately partitions total value of the natural resource, with value of the permit or licence reducing the value of the resource recorded as part of natural resources. In the extended balance sheet, by convention, the total value of the natural resource is recorded as part of environmental assets and, if required, the value of the associated permit or licence should be recorded as an “of which” item.

### Assigning economic ownership and allocation of degradation and enhancement (11.48–11.55)
- 11.48: Compilation of ecosystem accounts in physical and monetary terms does not necessarily require a statement or assumption concerning ownership of ecosystem assets. This neutrality allows ecosystem accounts to be used in many decision-making contexts and supports viewing ecosystems as distinct ecological entities.
- 11.49: This perspective is consistent with SEEA Central Framework para. 2.17, where environmental assets are defined as components of the Earth that constitute the biophysical environment and have the potential to deliver benefits to humanity.
- 11.50: Understanding ecosystem assets in legal and economic ownership contexts is relevant for policy on ecosystem management and use. Cross-classifying ecosystem accounting data with legal and economic ownership data (e.g. linking extent accounts with cadastres) is policy-relevant and useful for assessing connections between ecosystem types and managing units; similarly cross-classifying supply of ecosystem services with economic ownership of land and areas is pertinent.
- 11.51: For integration with SNA institutional sector accounts (income, distribution of income, capital, financial accounts for corporations, households, general government), ecosystem assets must be assigned to an institutional sector to enable derivation of degradation-adjusted measures of income and saving.
- 11.52–11.53 (ownership definitions and conventions):
  - 11.52: SNA distinguishes legal owner (“the institutional unit entitled in law and sustainable under the law to claim the benefits associated with the entities” (2008 SNA, para. 10.5)) and economic owner (“the institutional unit entitled to claim the benefits associated with the use of the entity in question in the course of an economic activity by virtue of accepting the associated risks” (ibid.)).
  - 11.53: By convention, all buildings and structures and almost all land and marine areas within a country’s economic territory are deemed owned by resident economic units. Where a non-resident is legal owner, a notional resident unit is created that owns the relevant asset and the non-resident holds a financial asset equal to the value of the relevant assets owned by the notional resident unit. This treatment underpins recording of flows between ecosystem assets and resident economic units, including imports/exports of ecosystem services and attribution of balance sheet value.
  - Footnote: A small exception applies to treatment of land and buildings of foreign Governments, such as embassies, which are treated as lying outside the economic territory of a country. As this matter is not considered material to development of integrated environmental-economic accounts, it is not considered further here. As required, 2008 SNA treatments should be applied.
- 11.54: Legal and economic owners are often the same but ambiguity arises in contexts such as government ownership of public roads, national parks and natural resources; financial leases; and private finance initiatives. Measurement approaches may be supported through definitions under the Framework on Effective Land Administration.
- 11.55: For integration of ecosystem accounts with SNA sector accounts, it is appropriate to partition ownership of ecosystem assets focusing on users of different ecosystem services — effectively partitioning benefits rather than physical asset. Where an ecosystem asset supplies services that contribute to SNA benefits (primarily provisioning services), that part of the asset value is considered owned by the sector that uses those services, most commonly the legal and economic owner of the land using services as inputs to private returns (e.g. agriculture or forestry).

*Source: section 11.3.3. of the provided PDF chapter.*

### 11.56  At  the  same  time,  where  an  ecosystem  asset  supplies  ecosystem  services  that

### Integrated and extended accounting for ecosystem services and assets — sections 11.56–11.73

### Ownership allocation for ecosystem assets
- Where an ecosystem asset supplies ecosystem services that contribute to non-SNA benefits (primarily regulating and maintenance services and cultural services), that part of the value of the asset is considered to be owned by a new subsector of general government entitled the “ecosystem trustee”.
- The ecosystem trustee:
  - Is a separate institutional unit from the ecosystem asset.
  - Receives benefits through the supply of ecosystem services and incurs costs in relation to supplying those services.
- Where an ecosystem asset does not contribute to non-SNA benefits, treatment aligns with SNA ownership assignment.
- Where an ecosystem asset does not contribute to any SNA benefits, the ecosystem trustee is assigned complete ownership (may occur in remote areas).
- Common mixed-ownership situations: many ecosystem assets contribute to both SNA and non-SNA benefits; ownership is partitioned between the ecosystem trustee and economic units deemed to own SNA benefits.
- Two alternative, economy-wide ownership assumptions are noted:
  - (a) assign all ecosystem assets to an ecosystem trustee; or
  - (b) assign all ecosystem assets to relevant economic units.
- The partitioned asset approach aligns most closely to SNA accounting principles and affects institutional-sector aggregates (relative sizes), though economy-wide aggregates such as GVA and degradation-adjusted value added may be unaffected by the ownership assumption.

### Allocation of ecosystem degradation and enhancement to economic units
- Degradation and enhancement measured in the monetary ecosystem asset account (Chapter 10) are allocated to economic units when integrating with economic accounts.
- Allocation follows the ownership assignment: degradation/enhancement of an ecosystem asset are partitioned and recorded in the accounts of either:
  - the economic unit that receives SNA benefits; or
  - the ecosystem trustee for contributions to non-SNA benefits.
- SEEA adopts a costs-borne approach for recording ecosystem degradation in integrated economic accounting, meaning the cost of capital is attributed to the economic unit assigned ownership of the asset (consistent with general accounting practice).
- An alternative allocation is the polluter-pays approach (allocate degradation to the causing economic unit), but challenges include distance of impacts and time lags between causing activity and observed degradation.
- The aggregate measure of degradation recorded in ecosystem accounts is not affected by the choice of allocation approach.
- Chapter 12 will discuss presentation of complementary estimates (e.g., allocation to causing units).

### Extended sequence of institutional sector accounts — purpose and structure
- Ecosystem accounting data augment SNA economic accounts via an extended sequence of accounts for institutional sectors, incorporating values of ecosystem services and changes in ecosystem assets (including degradation and enhancement) with standard production, income, and consumption measures.
- A key function is to link incomes, investments, and balance sheets; ecosystem degradation is attributed as a cost against institutional sector income (analogous to consumption of fixed capital).
- The extension requires inclusion of the ecosystem trustee as a subsector within, or next to, general government.
- Example economy (illustrative figures):
  - Farm output (wheat) = 200 currency units.
  - Cropland provides gross ecosystem services supply = 110 currency units:
    - Crop provisioning used by farmer as input = 80 currency units (input to SNA benefits).
    - Recreation-related services = 30 currency units (inputs to non-SNA benefit of physical and mental health).
  - Compensation of employees = 50 currency units.
  - Farmer’s consumption of fixed capital (tractor) = 10 currency units.
- Under standard SNA (no ecosystem services recorded): GDP (value added) = 200 currency units; farmer net saving = 140 currency units.
- Under partitioned ownership approach:
  - Crop provisioning services are recorded as supplied by the farmer and deducted as intermediate consumption.
  - Recreation-related services are recorded as supplied by the ecosystem trustee; an ecosystem services transfer in kind payable by the trustee and receivable by the recipient is recorded, and the household records final consumption of those services.
- Expenditure to manage ecosystem assets (incurred by the ecosystem trustee) should be recorded as intermediate consumption or capital formation of the ecosystem trustee, reallocating expenditures from other institutional sectors as appropriate.

### Adjusted income aggregates and implications
- Extended accounts derive adjusted measures (value added, operating surplus, disposable income, net saving) that take into account the cost of ecosystem degradation.
- To retain accounting consistency, income measures must be extended to incorporate the generation and use of ecosystem services that lie outside the standard SNA production boundary.
- Changes in ecosystem asset values other than degradation (e.g., enhancement, conversion) require further investigation and are on the SEEA EA research and development agenda.
- Broader discussion on adjusting GDP and SNA aggregates for environmental factors and the theoretical relationship between national accounts and welfare is referenced (appendix A12.1). Chapter 12 surveys complementary valuation approaches and their relationship to ecosystem accounts.

### Illustrative accounting examples and SUT implications
- Stylized SUT/tables illustrate integration of ecosystem services:
  - Example in text: gross ecosystem services supply = 110 currency units (80 crop provisioning + 30 recreation); total output expands when ecosystem services supplying non-SNA benefits are included.
  - Table A11.1.1 timber example highlights:
    - PART A (standard SUT): logged timber supply 50, furniture 80; value added 80.
    - PART B (include wood provisioning ecosystem service): ecosystem service (wood provisioning) = 30; forestry value added partitioned to industry (20) and ecosystem asset (30); overall value added remains 80.
    - PART C (add air filtration ecosystem service): air filtration = 15; total value added rises to 95 because air filtration is recorded as an increase in final consumption of households.
- Recording both supply and use of ecosystem services on a gross basis is presented as the most transparent way to manage concerns about double counting.

*Source: Extract from sections 11.56–11.73, accompanying examples and tables, SEEA EA chapter on integrated and extended accounting for ecosystem services and assets.*

### Chapter 12

### Chapter 12 — Complementary approaches to valuation

### 12.1 Introduction
- Primary purpose: integrate information on ecosystems with measures of economic activity consistent with SNA exchange value conventions (see chapters 8–11).
- Other monetary approaches exist (welfare values, WTP, total economic values) used in cost-benefit analysis and project appraisal; these are complementary but not incorporated into the SEEA EA exchange-value-based accounts.
- SEEA EA alignment with SNA means recorded monetary values reflect current use under existing management regimes and institutional arrangements, regardless of sustainability or efficiency.
- Alternative management regimes or institutional arrangements can be analytically important (e.g., internalizing negative externalities) but are not embedded in accounting values.

### 12.2 Building connections with welfare values
- SEEA EA supports links to welfare approaches via complementary tables: a bridge table linking accounting values to welfare values and tables making negative externalities and ecosystem disservices visible.
- Historical context:
  - Attempts to relate national income to social welfare (Pigou, Hicks, Kuznets, Nordhaus and Tobin).
  - 2008 SNA warns against a welfare-based interpretation of accounts (para. 1.75); SNA objective is compilation of economic activity per accounting conventions (2008 SNA, para. 1.1).
  - Past SEEA versions included extensions for degradation and household impacts (e.g., contingent valuation) but noted welfare adjustments are furthest removed from SNA conventions.

#### 12.2.2 Bridge table between accounting and welfare values
- Purpose: illustrate additions/subtractions when moving from exchange (accounting) values to welfare values for selected ecosystem services and illustrate why accounting values are smaller than welfare-based values.
- Example assumptions underpinning Table 12.1:
  - An area of land provides crop provisioning services to a farmer: 10 currency units (value derived net of input costs).
  - The same land provides recreation-related services: accounting valuation 5 currency units; users obtain consumer surplus of 20 currency units → total welfare use value for recreation = 25 units.
  - Non-use value attributed to the ecosystem asset as a whole: 300 currency units.
  - Asset values are NPVs of constant flows at discount rate 5 per cent; asset values: (a) 300 units based on accounting values (included in extended SNA balance sheet); (b) 700 units based on welfare use values; (c) 1,000 units based on use and non-use values (welfare-basis wealth account).
- Key measurement notes:
  - Welfare values sometimes estimate benefits rather than the ecosystem contribution to benefits (e.g., valuing crop benefits at market price).
  - For provisioning and many regulating/maintenance services, it may be reasonable to assume no consumer surplus; cultural and non-use values typically require stated-preference approaches.

- Table 12.1 — Bridge table between accounting and welfare values of ecosystem services (currency units)
  - 1. Accounting value: Crop provisioning services = 10; Recreation-related services = 5; Total flow = 15; Asset = 300
  - 2. Consumer surplus: Crop provisioning services = 0; Recreation-related services = 20
  - 3. Welfare use value: Crop provisioning services = 10; Recreation-related services = 25; Total flow = 35; Asset = 700
  - 4. Welfare non-use value: Asset = 300
  - Total welfare value: Asset = 1 000

- Analytical implication:
  - Large differences between accounting and welfare-based valuations highlight unrealized values and may motivate policy interventions when current management (e.g., open access) yields low exchange values despite high WTP.

### 12.3 Assessing externalities, ecosystem disservices and health outcomes
- Externalities overview:
  - Definition: impacts arising when actions of an individual, firm or community affect the welfare of others and the agent does not take full account of the effect (Markandya and others, 2001).
  - Externalities can be positive or negative; environmental economics focuses largely on negative externalities (pollution, emissions).
  - Externalities are measured as social costs and benefits affecting other economic units.

- Accounting vs externality assessment:
  - Accounting is transaction-based and records actual exchanges between units; it does not explicitly record externalities or the counterfactual (what would have happened absent the externality).
  - Externality measurement compares two contexts: with and without the externality; welfare effects typically measured via changes in consumer and producer surplus.
  - Ecosystem accounts can provide baseline data on changes in ecosystem condition and service flows to underpin externality/cost-benefit analyses.

- Positive externalities:
  - Extension: value flows of services in terms of total surplus (producer + consumer surplus) rather than exchange values; present complementary welfare valuations alongside exchange-value estimates (bridge table example).

- Negative externalities and ecosystem disservices:
  - Accounts can track effects of externalities over time where effects fall within accounting boundaries (e.g., increased purification costs recorded by water supply company; soil degradation reflected in reduced ecosystem condition and farmer output).
  - Accounts do not record reasons for changes nor aim to measure counterfactual outcomes; however, they can associate externalities with locations and affected ecosystem assets.
  - Distinction: disservices often caused by environmental factors (e.g., mosquitoes causing malaria); negative externalities caused by activities of economic units (e.g., land clearing spreading zoonotic diseases).
  - Accounting framing for disservices: capture wider effects implicitly as reductions in ecosystem service flows (e.g., crop losses from pests; reduced recreational opportunities due to algal blooms).

- Illustrative accounting treatments (summaries of Tables 12.2 and 12.3 examples):
  - Disservice example (Table 12.2):
    - Two activities: agriculture (ISIC, sect. A) and manufacturing (ISIC, sect. C), producing products X and Y.
    - Ecosystem service A provided to ISIC sect. A.
    - Disservice B introduced (e.g., elephants trampling crops) reduces the value of the ecosystem service by 20 currency units (entered as a negative).
    - Net value of crop provisioning service used by ISIC A becomes 50 currency units.
    - An income transfer is recorded so disposable income equals the situation without recording the disservice, while making the disservice explicit.
    - Accounting advantage: same outputs recorded as in extended SUT but with disservice value visible; approach applicable when no offsetting ecosystem service exists (e.g., GHG emissions recorded as negative ecosystem output reducing household final consumption).

  - Negative externality example (Table 12.3):
    - Farmer disposes of agricultural wastes into a river, causing costs to downstream water supply company (ISIC, sect. E).
    - Externality recorded as negative output of the farmer: -20 currency units, reducing farmer’s output and value added.
    - In the use table, the externality recorded as negative intermediate consumption (-20 currency units) by the ecosystem, reflecting the ecosystem suffering the externality.
    - Effects shown:
      - Value added of the ecosystem in the absence of the externality: 75 currency units.
      - Actual ecosystem services supplied: 55 currency units.
      - Actual ecosystem services used: 25 units by ISIC, sect. A, and 30 units by ISIC, sect. E.
      - Income transfer: 75 currency units ensures the ecosystem has no disposable income and activities have same value added as without the ecosystem service and externality.

### 12.4 Linkages and further notes (chapter plan)
- Chapter describes connections between exchange- and welfare-based accounting; subsequent sections include alternative measures of income, wealth and degradation under different attribution/institutional assumptions, linkages with corporate natural capital assessments, and an appendix examining conceptual connection between exchange and welfare values.

*Source: seeaeaea - Chapter 12*

### 12.27 In many situations, the discussion of negative externalities and ecosystem dis-

### seeaeaea - 12.27 In many situations, the discussion of negative externalities and ecosystem dis-

### Health outcomes and limits of ecosystem accounting
- National accounts do not place a direct value on health outcomes; they focus on measuring inputs to human health (for example, outputs related to doctors and hospitals).
- Ecosystem accounting measures ecosystems’ contributions to health outcomes (e.g. through air filtration services) but not the health outcomes themselves.
- Direct measurement of health outcomes and dose-response functions (tracking changes in population health in relation to changes in ecosystem condition, for example water quality) is an important complementary area of analysis, exemplified by work under “measuring the costs of environmental degradation.”

### Complementary monetary valuation approaches in the private sector
- Environmental profit and loss statements: add or subtract the monetary value of externalities from financial income or profit (for example, deducting the social cost of carbon associated with emissions from financial profit).

### Restoration cost–based approaches to measuring degradation
- SEEA 1993 and SEEA 2003 emphasized restoration (maintenance) costs: value degradation by the costs required to restore the environment to a previous or agreed condition rather than by explicitly valuing environmental assets in terms of future flows.
- Key conceptual points:
  - If environmental quality meets or exceeds a suitable threshold (for example, sufficient clean air), the restoration-cost framing posits no additional cost to account for.
  - Non-market benefits from nature are not treated as exchanges with economic actors and hence the production boundary is not extended in the restoration-cost framing.
  - Restoration costs and damage-based estimates were both described in SEEA 2003; environmental accounting has mainly focused on cost-based approaches.
- Types of cost in relation to environmental degradation:
  - Preventative: avoidance and abatement costs (may already be recorded if incurred).
  - Reversal: restoration costs (expenditure required to return environment to a given condition).
- Measurement challenges for restoration costs:
  - They are estimates of future expenditure requiring assumptions on prices and quantities; core assumptions include least-cost estimates and broad agreement that expenditures are justified.
  - Restoration may take considerable time; connection to corporate provisions is relevant but provisions are not recorded in the national accounts.
  - Determining the target environmental quality requires understanding benefits from ecosystems, ecological thresholds, socially desired state, and links to regulations and standards; ecosystems may not be fully restorable to a natural state.
  - A simplifying assumption: restoration to condition at the beginning of the accounting period.
- Integration and presentation:
  - Monetary estimates of restoration-cost-based degradation could be integrated into accounts as a macro adjustment (e.g., adding “unpaid ecological costs” to final expenditure categories, recording final consumption and gross fixed capital formation on a “total costs” basis).
  - Unpaid costs that remain unpaid can be recorded as a negative with respect to saving, creating a liability category “ecological debt of the economy.”
  - Restoration-cost estimates need not align with loss of future flows of ecosystem services or with social WTP; they may be applied where no underlying ecosystem asset is recognized (for example, atmosphere or high seas fisheries).

### Polluter-pays presentation of degradation
- SEEA EA typically allocates cost of degradation to the owner (cost-borne perspective). An alternative is to allocate costs to the economic unit that caused the degradation (costs-caused or “polluter pays” perspective).
- Implementation in the sequence of accounts:
  - Allocate degradation on the basis of costs caused in the production account.
  - Transfer degradation costs between sectors in the allocation of income account by including rows for degradation transfer in kind payable and receivable, ensuring degradation-adjusted disposable income matches costs-borne presentation.
  - Example assumption: the farmer is responsible for all of the degradation.
- Advantages:
  - Ecosystem asset value underpinning supply reflects the costs-borne perspective (value of the asset to the economic owner).
  - Production and value added entries provide a net value added measure reflecting a costs-caused perspective.
- Practical challenges:
  - Assigning causation may be difficult when effects are distant from cause, multiple units contribute, or time lags exist between causative activities and incurred costs.

- Illustrative figures (from the alternative recording in Table 12.4, polluter-pays recording with ecosystem degradation of 15 currency units allocated to the polluter):
  - Output: Total 280; Agriculture 280; Household 30; Ecosystem trustee 310
  - Ecosystem services (air filtration): 30 30
  - Gross value added: 200 302 30
  - less Consumption of fixed capital (produced assets): 10 10
  - less Ecosystem degradation (polluter pays): 15 0 15
  - Degradation-adjusted net value added: 175 302 205
  - Degradation-adjusted net operating surplus: 12 530 155
  - Ecosystem service transfer in kind payable: 30 30
  - Degradation transfer in kind payable: 5 5
  - Degradation-adjusted disposable income: 130 80 -5 205
  - Unpaid ecological costs: 25 25
  - Degradation-adjusted net saving: 130 -175 -5 -50
  - Capital account entries: plus Ecosystem degradation 10 5 15
  - Net lending/borrowing: 150 -175 0 -25
  - Changes in balance sheet: Changes in ecosystem assets (non-SNA) 10 5 15; Changes in ecological debt (non-SNA) 25 25

(Note: the table’s note indicates cells changed/added when allocating ecosystem degradation of 15 currency units to the polluter and when including unpaid ecological costs assumed related to environmental assets outside the scope of the included sectors’ balance sheets.)

### Defensive expenditures
- Defensive expenditures (for example, purchase of equipment to filter polluted air) increase production and consumption in SNA terms but may not enhance welfare.
- These expenditures may be deducted to provide an alternative national income measure aligned with welfare considerations.
- Main challenge: defining the measurement boundary for defensive expenditures.

### Alternative measures of environmental income and asset valuation
- Ecosystem accounts treat monetary value of flows of ecosystem services as output and therefore as income; expectations of future income flows affect monetary value and changes in value of ecosystem assets.
- Entries for changes in value of ecosystem assets include: ecosystem enhancement, ecosystem degradation, ecosystem conversions, and other changes (other changes in volume or revaluations). Other changes in volume and revaluations are not considered part of income in national accounting.
- An alternative framing (Hicksian measure) defines income to include all changes in asset values, including other changes in volume and revaluations. This approach:
  - Has many similarities to SEEA EA.
  - Differs primarily by explicitly incorporating all changes in asset values in a manner not aligned with the SNA.
  - Uses underlying accounting entries and valuations aligned with the exchange value concept.

*Italic: Source: seeaeaea - 12.27–12.49, complementary tables and discussion, System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (PDF chapter).*

### 12.50 The recording of the monetary value of ecosystem services and the consequen-

### seeaeaea - 12.50 The recording of the monetary value of ecosystem services and the consequential  extension  of  the  monetary  value  of  environmental  assets  relative  to  the  SNA

### 12.50–12.51: Valuation assumptions and documentation
- The recording of the monetary value of ecosystem services and the consequential extension of the monetary value of environmental assets relative to the SNA is consistent with the central logic of wealth accounting (see Barbier (2013)).
- A range of alternative assumptions and institutional contexts can be applied when implementing wealth accounting; key considerations include:
  - For some biological resources (especially fish stocks) where limited regulation and open access permit, the resource rent reflecting the price of the asset will fall to very low levels; estimating values under an alternative institutional context may be of interest. These values might be considered unrealized values.
  - For biological resources and all ecosystem services, estimating the present value of future returns under alternative institutional arrangements (for example assuming some optimal management) may be of interest. These values might be considered unrealized values; a specific case is estimating asset values under an assumption of long-term sustainable use, which might be considered sustainability-based values.
  - Alternative valuation concepts may include estimates of consumer surplus in the value of future flows of ecosystem services.
  - When valuing individual ecosystem assets, deducting the value of ecosystem disservices may be appropriate to the extent those disservices have a negative overall effect on the asset’s contribution to society.
  - When defining future income flows, alternative treatments and interpretations of capital gains and depreciation (compared with standard national accounting principles) may be applied.
- Guidance: Values obtained from ecosystem accounts represent one alternative to asset valuation; it is relevant to document carefully the selected assumptions and treatments so that differences between wealth accounting estimates are clearly understood.
- Documentation should include:
  - A clear articulation of the set of ecosystem services used to measure natural capital in the wealth accounts.
  - Information on the selected discount rate and asset lives.

### 12.52–12.53: Extended modelling / greened economy modelling and scenario analysis
- Concern: Monetary measures in an extended income framing reflect current imperfect institutions and regulations for managing the environmental-economic system.
- Alternative approach: Undertake extended modelling to estimate an alternative GDP (and other income measures) under the assumption of alternative environmental constraints (e.g., restrictions on pollution). Greened economy modelling derives a measure of income for an alternative economy rather than an alternative measure of income for the existing economy (SEEA 2003, sect. 11.F.4).
- Applications: The accounts can be used in scenario analysis; see Policy Scenario Analysis Using SEEA Ecosystem Accounting (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division, and UNEP, 2021) for technical treatment.

### 12.54–12.57: Corporate natural capital assessments and cross-fertilization
- Recent advances in natural capital accounting at the corporate level:
  - Focus historically on corporate impacts on the environment, particularly GHG emissions and other pollutants.
  - Increasing emphasis on dependencies on water, ecosystems, and biodiversity.
- Corporate approaches commonly adopt an externalities-based framing (e.g., environmental profit and loss accounts) and have been applied to:
  - Risk analysis
  - Identifying operational efficiencies
  - Securing access to sustainable finance
- Spatially based corporate approaches exist (e.g., corporate natural capital accounting, Biological Diversity Protocol, Natural Capital Accounting for Organizations (United Kingdom)); differences versus SEEA-based accounting arise mainly from differing analytical questions.
  - Corporate questions often reflect reporting requirements focused on business impacts on society and therefore tend to apply welfare-based rather than exchange value-based valuation methods.
  - Data detail: Questions arise about whether SEEA-based data are sufficiently detailed for corporate-scale measurement and analysis.
- Potential for cross-fertilization:
  - Collating consistent and spatially detailed physical and monetary data using the ecosystem accounting approach offers potential for shared measurement of ecosystem extent, condition, and ecosystem services flows.
  - Shared measurement should encompass sharing of data, use of agreed classifications, and application of coherent definitions.
  - Monetary valuation will remain an area of discussion in both public and corporate accounting contexts.
  - Need for further engagement on developing and harmonizing accounting principles at national and corporate levels, and on developing rich data sets to underpin accounting at all scales.

### Appendix A12.1: Exchange and welfare values in an accounting context — key technical points
- Purpose: Technical summary of the relationship between exchange value-based accounting and monetary values focused on welfare measurement.
- Fundamental concepts:
  - Monetary valuation in neoclassical economics uses willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept (WTA) represented by demand curves.
  - For a single marketed good and single consumer/producer:
    - Line AB is the individual demand curve; total WTP for quantity Q0 is the area under the demand curve.
    - If sold at price P, the individual purchases Q0; accounting value is the sum of money exchanged (area corresponding to price × quantity).
    - Consumer surplus is the benefit above what is paid (area above accounting value under demand).
  - Incorporating supply:
    - Supply curve is upward sloping; intersection of supply and demand (point A) determines exchange price and quantity.
    - Area Z: costs of supply. Area Y: producer surplus. Area X: consumer surplus. Welfare (total surplus) = X + Y.
- Key implications:
  - Price × quantity establishes accounting value; price reflects marginal value (marginal WTP to consumer, marginal cost to producer).
  - Welfare derived from a good equals total WTP (payment plus consumer surplus). National accounts record accounting values but can be linked to welfare changes via marginal interpretations.
  - The link between changes in GDP/NDP and changes in societal welfare relies on restrictive assumptions (absence of externalities, competitive markets). Weitzman (1976) and Harberger (1971) provide formal results under such assumptions; Löfgren (2010) surveys the literature.
  - Important to consider production boundary scope: goods/services included in income measures should correlate positively with well-being; ecosystem accounting aims to (a) consider goods and services excluded from GDP and (b) reflect effects of losing access to those goods and services due to ecosystem degradation.
- Extension to non-market values:
  - Market demand curves for individuals can be aggregated horizontally for private goods and vertically for (quasi) public goods (e.g., recreation-related services, protected areas with inelastic supply).
  - In SNA some goods are valued at cost of production when no market price exists (e.g., defence, public health); cost data do not imply provision levels are unrelated to value — provision reflects collective WTP via taxes and user charges.
  - Ecosystem services often lack monetary exchange; valuation techniques (chap. 9) have been developed to price ecosystem services where market prices are absent.
  - These techniques estimate marginal WTP and can be applied to estimate accounting values by multiplying marginal WTP by a revealed quantity exchanged.
  - Prices used for accounting values typically assume current institutional arrangements; they need not align with marginal WTP estimates under theoretically preferred institutional arrangements (e.g., perfect competition).
  - Where ecosystem services closely relate to marketed goods/services, inferring preferences and marginal WTP is more feasible and institutional assumptions about observed prices are more likely appropriate.

*Source: seeaeaea - 12.50 The recording of the monetary value of ecosystem services and the consequential  extension  of  the  monetary  value  of  environmental  assets  relative  to  the  SNA*

### Appendix A12.1: Exchange and welfare values in an accounting context

### Appendix A12.1: Exchange and welfare values in an accounting context

### 13.1 Introduction
- Ecosystem accounting provides a systematic and comprehensive framing with respect to ecosystem extent, ecosystem condition and ecosystem services and offers one perspective on monetary values of ecosystem services and ecosystem assets.
- The set of five ecosystem accounts, extended accounts and complementary valuations (described in chapters 3 to 12) allow:
  - broad-scale measurement of trends in ecosystems and their services;
  - incorporation of ecosystem-related data into standard economic reporting and analysis.
- Policy and analysis related to the environment can be framed in many ways and often require consideration of specific environmental themes (examples: biodiversity, climate change, oceans, urban areas).

### 13.2 General principles of thematic accounting
- Thematic accounting: using data from ecosystem accounts together with SEEA Central Framework and SNA accounts and other sources to support thematic reporting and decision-making.
- Key benefits: consistency with additional data sets; supports spatial disaggregation and consistent classifications to underpin reporting and decision-making.
- Three types of rules and treatments most relevant in thematic accounting:
  1. Clearly agreed geographical area (EAA in ecosystem accounting) aligned with SNA economic territory; can focus on targeted areas for themes (e.g., coastal and marine ecosystems).
  2. Set of entities to focus on (ecosystems in ecosystem accounting; economic units in SNA; individual stocks and flows in SEEA Central Framework). Selection leads to relevant classifications (ecosystem types, ecosystem services, economic activity, products, land/soil/mineral/energy resources, air pollutants).
  3. Multiple accounts required to organize relevant information — no single account suffices. Each account (e.g., asset accounts, SUTs) has independent relevance:
     - Asset accounts: provide opening and closing positions and full description of changes in stock.
     - Supply and use tables (SUTs): balance supply and use by entities.
- Consistent geographical boundary and consistent classifications enable coherent narratives, derivation of consistent indicators, and integration into models and analytical tools.
- Choices on geography, entities, classifications should be linked to existing data and decision-making processes (e.g., administrative boundaries) to facilitate incorporation and use.
- Accounting principles apply across spatial scales and are unaffected by the choice of classification; classification choices should focus on the intended use of the accounts, including comparability over time and locations.
- Common practical approaches to thematic accounting:
  - Extend or adapt an existing SEEA account to provide additional detail or alternative classifications (example: compile adapted extent and condition accounts at the level of forest species and distinguish land-use and management arrangements).
  - Focus on a specific entity or group of entities and build associated accounts (examples: carbon stock and flow accounts for climate change; accounts for target species or taxa for biodiversity).
  - Focus on a type of area with specific management and policy relevance (examples: protected areas, urban areas, coastal and marine areas) and combine ecosystem accounts with SEEA and SNA accounts for comprehensive datasets.
- Thematic accounts can be compiled at national level, for large administrative regions, or detailed landscape and catchment scales; global-scale accounts may be relevant for themes like climate change or high seas beyond national jurisdiction.
- SEEA Central Framework accounts should be used in combination with ecosystem accounts to support thematic accounting; appendix A13.1 provides a general introduction to relevant Central Framework accounts.
- Examples where Central Framework data feed ecosystem accounts: water resources asset account and carbon stock account can support measurement of ecosystem service flows and ecosystem condition indicators.

### 13.3 Accounting for biodiversity
#### 13.3.1 Introduction
- Biodiversity comprises three levels — ecosystems, species and genes — per the Convention on Biological Diversity definition: “the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems”.
- Purpose of accounting for biodiversity:
  - Inform conservation actions;
  - Enhance biodiversity as an environmental management objective;
  - Facilitate discussion on securing ecosystem services supply and relevant policy responses (e.g., biodiversity finance).
- Accounting for biodiversity recognizes the Convention on Biological Diversity definition and links between economic activity and changes in biodiversity.
- The IUCN World Conservation Congress resolution 057 (2020) entitled “Accounting for biodiversity: encompassing ecosystems, species and genetic diversity” reflects the ambition to mainstream biodiversity into national policy and decision-making.

#### 13.3.2 Biodiversity assessments and SEEA EA
- Primary data sources and assessment frameworks relevant to biodiversity include:
  - IUCN Red List of Threatened Species;
  - IUCN Red List of Ecosystems;
  - IUCN Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas;
  - IPBES;
  - Biodiversity Indicators Partnership;
  - Global Biodiversity Information Facility;
  - GEO BON approach to essential biodiversity variables (organizing framework for primary data).
- Accounting for biodiversity is not intended to replace or duplicate existing biodiversity assessment initiatives; there is no single “biodiversity account”.
- Global monitoring initiatives relevant to biodiversity include efforts under the Convention on Biological Diversity and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework has five pillars covering ecosystems, species, genetic material, ecosystem services and biodiversity finance.
- Three main connections between SEEA EA and biodiversity assessment/monitoring:
  1. Biodiversity assessment data can support compilation of ecosystem condition accounts and input to measurement of ecosystem services (e.g., species abundance and diversity data support measures of composition, structure and function).
  2. Data from SEEA EA accounts can be inputs to assessment frameworks and global monitoring initiatives where measures pertain to ecosystems (e.g., ecosystem extent, condition, services flows).
  3. Ecosystem accounts (ecosystem services) and SEEA Central Framework data (environmental protection expenditure; environmental taxes and subsidies) can support discussion of interactions between biodiversity, people and the economy.
- Ecosystem accounts do not provide direct measures of ecosystem diversity; rather, extent and condition information can support understanding of status and trends in biodiversity. Developing measures of ecosystem diversity from ecosystem accounts is a research area for advancing accounting for biodiversity.
- Advancing accounting for biodiversity requires coherence with national biodiversity objectives and international commitments; ministries responsible for national biodiversity strategies and multilateral environmental agreements should be involved early in accounting for biodiversity work.

#### 13.3.3 Accounting for species
- Environmental-economic accounting can create structured links between the environment, economic activity and human well-being; this motivates compiling species accounts that link selected species to economic activity and human well-being to support decision-making.

*Source: seeaeaea - Appendix A12.1: Exchange and welfare values in an accounting context (PDF).*

### 13.27  Species  accounts  measure  changes  in  (a)  species  “status”  in  terms  of  extinc-

### 13.27  Species  accounts  measure  changes  in  (a)  species  “status”  in  terms  of  extinction  risk  over  an  accounting  period;  (b)  species  stocks  (e.g.  in  terms  of  presence  or  abundance); and (c) species distribution.

### Overview and purpose
- Species accounts measure changes in:
  - species “status” in terms of extinction risk over an accounting period;
  - species stocks (e.g. presence or abundance);
  - species distribution.
- All species accounts share a general structure: an opening entry, changes over the accounting period, and a closing entry. 141
- Species accounts do not directly generate a measure of species diversity but can support assessment of species diversity and provide input for indicators of species diversity. 141

### Types of species to include and scope
- Four high-level groups for species accounting:
  - (a) species of concern (e.g. threatened species);
  - (b) species important for ecosystem services;
  - (c) species of social or cultural significance;
  - (d) species important for maintaining ecosystem condition (or functioning).
- A species account may focus on a single species, a selection of species, or taxa relevant to the accounting purpose.

### Rationale and link to ecosystem services
- Abundance/persistence accounting for species important to provisioning services is established (SEEA AFF context).
- For sustainably harvested species, stocks need to be quantified in the context of supply and use of services (example: commercial fishery species).
- Regulating services also require species stock recording (example: pollinator species).
- Species accounts can support measurement of cultural ecosystem services (e.g. sacred plants, iconic animals) and non-use/bequest values labeled “ecosystem and species appreciation.”

### Measurement approaches
- Compilation commonly relies on existing data and monitoring programmes; the IUCN Red List is a notable data source underpinning many assessments.
- Two general measurement approaches (both used in Red List assessments):
  - Direct observation:
    - Informed by large sample surveys, stock assessments, censuses of protected areas and nature reserves.
    - Where sampling densities are sufficient and spatially referenced, species accounts can be aligned to ecosystem types and integrated with ecosystem accounts.
  - Inferred approaches:
    - Habitat-based inferred approach uses observations of changes in spatial extent (area) and configuration of habitat required by species/communities (UNEP-WCMC, 2016).
    - Inferred approaches underlie a large proportion of Red List assessments.
    - More sophisticated measures can estimate species persistence or proportions of species expected to be retained in communities.
    - Data from ecosystem extent and condition accounts are valuable for assessing spatial configuration and condition of remaining habitat and linking ecosystem changes to species extinction risk.

### Account structure and compilation
- General structure mirrors an asset account and is similar to the ecosystem extent account (see table 13.1).
- Scale of compilation is flexible but likely to be at the scale of EAAs, in aggregate or by ecosystem type.
- Table 13.1 columns organize information on selected species or species groups (e.g. lions, elephants, taxa, functional groups such as pollinators).
- Recorded entries per column: Measurement unit; Opening measure; Additions (Unmanaged, Managed); Reductions (Unmanaged, Managed); Net change; Closing measure.
- Additions examples: species population growth, reintroductions, translocations.

### Examples of existing species accounts
- Developed accounts include:
  - cycads and rhinoceros in South Africa (Statistics South Africa, 2021a; 2021b);
  - butterflies in the Australian Capital Territory;
  - species accounts in the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Bogaart and others, 2020).

### Linking species accounts to other data and spatial scale considerations
- Species accounts can be linked to other accounting data using aligned geographical boundaries, classifications, and accounting treatments to complement information on economic activity and human well-being.
- Habitat-based assessments using ecosystem extent and condition accounts can support species and multi-species diversity assessment (examples: chimpanzees and shea trees in Uganda (UNEP-WCMC and IDEEA, 2017); multi-species diversity in San Martin region of Peru (Alam and others, 2016)).
- Further research area: connection between SEEA EA and habitat-based biodiversity assessment, particularly spatial scale in deriving and aggregating biodiversity metrics (background paper by Larsen and others, 2021 available at https://seea.un.org/content/accounting-biodiversity). 142

### Multi-species diversity and spatial configuration
- Measuring multi-species diversity requires:
  - data on abundance and trends of selected species in locations;
  - understanding species assemblages, connectivity among local populations, and links to ecosystem types.
- Ecosystem accounts focus on individual ecosystem assets and do not capture beta and gamma diversity or effects of spatial configuration (e.g. connectivity) on biodiversity persistence—these aspects fall within biodiversity accounting and spatial-scale methods (see Larsen and others, 2021).

### Genetic level of biodiversity
- Genetic diversity concerns variety of genes between and within species populations; linked to condition of populations and affected by fragmentation/isolation.
- Maintaining phylogenetic diversity is important for genetic diversity options (IPBES); gene pools are important for crop/livestock development, biosafety/biosecurity, and option values for future medical/biomimicry applications. 143
- Species account framing (table 13.1) could be adapted to record extinction risk of phylogenetically diverse species/groups and track translocations where meta-populations become isolated.
- There have not yet been advances in accounts for the genetic level of biodiversity, but as genetic data become more available, accounting may help link genetic biodiversity to economic and human activity and well-being.

### Using accounting data to support biodiversity decision-making
- SEEA EA describes relationships between ecosystems, their species, and SNA and non-SNA benefits; this can be complemented by SEEA Central Framework data on material and financial flows (provisioning services, pollutant emissions, environmental protection expenditure).
- When accounts are compiled with aligned areas, classifications, and treatments, cross-cutting indicators and analyses can be derived (e.g. linking expenditure on biodiversity to changes in ecosystem condition; linking condition changes to land use and emissions).
- Accounts of ecologically important areas (policy designations, scientific determinations, regional prioritizations, national/subnational priorities) help identify where biodiversity is most at risk and where risk should be managed.
- Ecosystem services flow accounts (physical and monetary) can reveal importance of species/diversity to economic activity and well-being (e.g. provisioning services, tourism) and support the case for investment in conservation and restoration.
- Combined presentations following SEEA Central Framework principles can integrate information to mainstream biodiversity into economic and social statistics and inform opportunity-cost analyses (example: opportunity costs of conserving mangrove forests vs. forgone income from establishing shrimp farms).

### Table mapping SEEA accounts to biodiversity-relevant aggregates (summary of table 13.2)
- SEEA EA — Extent: Trends in extent of ecosystems important for biodiversity can infer implications for species and species loss. a
- SEEA EA — Condition (Biotic characteristics): Distinguish ecosystem assets where biodiversity is more intact; identify threatened biodiversity via poor condition trends (e.g. invasive species abundance).
- SEEA EA — Condition (Abiotic characteristics): Track where pressures on biodiversity manifest (e.g. pollutant concentration increases); help link ecosystem degradation to species loss using habitat-based techniques.
- SEEA EA — Services (Physical supply and use): Aggregates for provisioning services can identify overexploitation of species (including illegal use such as poaching).
- SEEA Central Framework — Land use and land cover: Link spatial biodiversity loss to sectors and economic activities.
- SEEA Central Framework — Emissions: Spatially disaggregated emission flows can identify where pollutant pressures on biodiversity are likely to manifest.
- SEEA Central Framework — Environmental protection expenditure: Financial transactions on biodiversity conservation/enhancement can be linked to changes in ecosystem/species status for policy insights.
- SNA — Production and consumption: Monetary transactions involving biodiversity-related goods and services (e.g. provisioning services, wildlife tourism) can be linked to biodiversity elements in SEEA EA to inform opportunity-costs and trade-offs.

a Even without ongoing species monitoring, the species-area curve can reasonably estimate species loss based only on change in ecosystem extent.

*Source: Excerpt from System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (seeaeaea), chapter section including paragraphs 13.27–13.46 and tables 13.1 and 13.2.*

### 13.47  Some  aspects  of  biodiversity  that  are  essential  for  development  to  proceed  in

### seeaeaea - 13.47  Some  aspects  of  biodiversity  that  are  essential  for  development  to  proceed  in

### Biodiversity aspects not fully captured by ecosystem services flow accounts
- Some aspects of biodiversity essential for development in balance with nature may not be well reflected in ecosystem services flow accounts (para. 13.47).
- These aspects concern the role biodiversity plays in supporting the supply of ecosystem services (section 6.3.3), and specifically include:
  - insurance values;
  - option values (para. 13.47).
- Society places significant value on the continued existence of biodiversity for spiritual, religious or non-use reasons, including existence and bequest values (para. 13.48).
- Biophysical indicators recommended to reflect changes relevant to non-use values include:
  - extent of natural ecosystems;
  - recorded non-use flows concerning ecosystems and species appreciation;
  - indicators from species accounts (para. 13.48).

### Accounting for climate change — introduction and role of SEEA
- Climate change is identified as one of the major global challenges; ecosystem accounting can provide data on ecosystems’ roles in GHG cycling and impacts of climate change on ecosystems and biodiversity (para. 13.49).
- The Conference of the Parties decision 1/CP.25 (“Chile Madrid Time for Action”), adopted at the twenty-fifth session (Madrid, 2 to 15 December 2019), underlined “the essential contribution of nature to addressing climate change and its impacts and the need to address biodiversity loss and climate change in an integrated manner” (para. 13.49).
- SEEA, as an integrated statistical framework, can support international and national policy discussions related to climate change and link climate change to other environmental topics such as biodiversity and the circular economy (para. 13.49).
- SEEA EA accounts combined with SEEA Central Framework and the SNA can support:
  - carbon mitigation and adaptation policies;
  - carbon markets and financing mechanisms;
  - carbon stock assessment and management;
  - linking of air emissions and economic activity;
  - recording and modelling climate change outcomes related to ecosystems, ecosystem services and economic activity;
  - sector-based assessments (e.g., agriculture);
  - ecosystem-focused planning (e.g., peatlands);
  - co-benefits of carbon projects and policies;
  - impacts of mitigation responses (para. 13.50).

### How SEEA EA complements IPCC and informs decision-making
- SEEA complements IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006) by:
  - including both managed and unmanaged areas (IPCC focuses on net emissions due to human activities while SEEA is more comprehensive);
  - allowing connection with economic activities (para. 13.51).
- The present section introduces three areas where accounting supports climate decision-making:
  - potential of ecosystem accounts data to inform decisions;
  - accounting for stocks and changes in carbon stocks;
  - other accounting connections and indicators (para. 13.52).

### Applying SEEA EA to inform climate policies
- Ecosystem accounts provide data to monitor and analyze climate policies because climate change affects the extent and condition of ecosystem assets and flows of ecosystem services; a common framework facilitates policy comparison (para. 13.53).
- Extent accounts show managed and unmanaged conversions in ecosystem types that underpin changes in carbon removal and emission from ecosystems; these data can be linked to LULUCF assessments as used in IPCC measurements (para. 13.54).
- Condition accounts include ecosystem characteristics relevant to carbon stored in ecosystems, such as:
  - soil organic carbon;
  - dry matter productivity;
  - carbon stock indicators for biomass (para. 13.55).
- Condition indicators should capture local climate change impacts (e.g., local temperatures and rainfall patterns), but SEEA accounts do not incorporate direct measurement of climate variables such as atmospheric and ocean concentrations of GHGs or comprehensive temperature and rainfall data (para. 13.55).
- Selected ecosystem services (table 6.3) relevant to climate policies include global climate regulation services—ecosystem contributions to regulation of atmospheric gas concentrations via sequestration and retention of carbon (para. 13.56).
- SEEA physical and monetary ecosystem service flow accounts (chapters 6, 7 and 9) identify ecosystem types important for carbon sequestration and retention and their changes over time (para. 13.56).
- Regulating ecosystem services that mitigate climate change impacts include:
  - local climate regulation services (e.g., evaporative cooling by urban trees, shade for livestock);
  - rainfall pattern regulation services (e.g., vegetation maintaining rainfall patterns via evapotranspiration, especially forests);
  - flood mitigation services (tidal surge and river flood mitigation);
  - storm mitigation services (vegetation mitigating impacts of windstorms, sandstorms) — accounts identify main contributing ecosystem types and beneficiaries (para. 13.57).
- Several provisioning and cultural ecosystem services (e.g., water supply, biomass provision, recreation) are impacted by climate change; isolating the precise climate contribution to service flows is not an ambition of the accounts (para. 13.58).

### Accounting for carbon — scope and structure
- Carbon accounting is central to environmental-economic accounting; the carbon stock account provides comprehensive coverage of all relevant carbon stocks and changes across stores at national or subnational levels, covering managed and unmanaged areas (para. 13.59).
- Carbon accounting must consider stocks and changes in the geosphere, biosphere, atmosphere, oceans and the economy; Figure 13.1 presents main components of the carbon cycle illustrating exchanges and processes such as photosynthesis, respiration, decomposition, emissions, extractions, fugitive and natural emissions, and accumulation in the economy (para. 13.60 and Figure 13.1 description).
- Structure of the carbon stock account is presented in table 13.3; it records opening and closing stocks, additions and reductions, with details in appendix A13.2 (para. 13.61).
- Carbon stocks are disaggregated into:
  - geocarbon (carbon in the geosphere);
  - biocarbon (carbon in the biosphere, living and dead biomass);
  - carbon in the oceans (carbon dissolved in seawater; carbon in sediments is part of biocarbon or geocarbon);
  - carbon in the atmosphere;
  - carbon accumulated in the economy (para. 13.62).
- Account rows follow the SEEA Central Framework asset account form: opening stock, additions, reductions, closing stock; additions/reductions can be attributed between managed and unmanaged expansion/contraction; net carbon balance equals additions less reductions (para. 13.63).
- All values in the carbon stock account should be in equivalent carbon weights (e.g., ton carbon). Methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions should be expressed in ton carbon, not in actual mass of CH4 and CO2 (para. 13.64).
  - For products (e.g., recycled plastic or paper), equivalent carbon content should be determined using average composition of materials.
  - For emissions to the atmosphere, a bridge table may be compiled both in ton carbon and in CO2 equivalents to link to SEEA Central Framework air emission accounts (para. 13.64).
- Carbon stock accounts are broader than ecosystem accounts (include carbon stocks beyond ecosystems) but closely linked to SEEA EA accounts and SEEA Central Framework accounts (e.g., physical assets of fossil fuels and minerals, carbon emissions to air, product flows to/from rest of world); SEEA AFF details links between economic activities and emissions related to land, land-use change and forestry (para. 13.65).
- Carbon stock measurements support analysis of policy-relevant issues including GHG emissions, sources of energy, deforestation and land-use change, loss of productivity and biomass, and sources and sinks of carbon emissions; carbon measurement is relevant for policies such as carbon taxes (para. 13.66).
- Biosphere carbon stock accounts combined with carbon carrying capacity and land-use history can be used to:
  - Record depletion of carbon stocks and resulting CO2 emissions due to conversion of natural ecosystems to other land uses;
  - Prioritize land use for restoration of biological carbon stocks (reforestation, afforestation, revegetation, ecosystem restoration, improved land management) while considering trade-offs among ecosystem services, biodiversity, food, fibre and wood production;
  - Identify land uses that result in carbon removal or retention (para. 13.67).

### Other climate change-related accounts and indicators
- SEEA Central Framework air emission account records generation of air emissions by resident economic units by substance type, including GHGs CO2, CH4, N2O, and fluorinated gases (F-gases); all emissions by establishments and households from production, consumption and accumulation are included (para. 13.68).
- GHG emissions recorded in SEEA for economic activities differ from national territorial totals or IPCC compilation guidelines due to differing concepts and calculation methods (para. 13.69).
  - Example: SEEA air emission accounts include emissions due to international transport based on the residence of the economic units involved.
  - Bridge tables provide insight into relationships between different emission concepts (para. 13.69).
- SEEA Central Framework air emission accounts include emissions from cultivated livestock (digestion, primarily methane) and emissions from soil due to cultivation and land-use practices; emissions from natural processes (e.g., unintended fires, peatland emissions, human metabolic processes) are excluded from SEEA Central Framework air emission accounts but are included in carbon stock accounts (para. 13.70).
- Physical flows of emissions are classified using the same activity and industry classifications as the SNA to permit linking physical flows to monetary data; emissions recorded for CO2 and CH4 in the SEEA Central Framework air emission account are directly linked to managed expansion (removal) and managed contraction (emission) of carbon in the carbon stock account (para. 13.71).
- SEEA Central Framework environmental activity accounts record monetary transactions for environmental activities; two classes particularly relevant to climate change are:
  - Environmental protection (1: Protection of ambient air and climate) — activities aimed at control of GHG emissions;
  - Resource management (10: Management of mineral and energy resources) — activities related to energy saving and renewable energy production.
- Data on these classes support analysis of mitigation costs for climate change and economic benefits from the energy transition regarding labour and contribution to GDP (para. 13.72).
- Transactions related to taxes and subsidies that influence producer and consumer behaviour (including payments and financial transactions related to carbon taxes and emission permits) are recorded in the SNA (para. 13.73).

*Source: seeaeaea - 13.47 Some aspects of biodiversity that are essential for development to proceed in (SEEA Ecosystem Accounting chapter content).*

### 13.74  There  is  a  wide  range  of  indicators  concerning  climate  change  that  may  be

### seeaeaea - 13.74  There  is  a  wide  range  of  indicators  concerning  climate  change  that  may  be

### Climate-change indicators derivable from SEEA accounts
- SEEA accounts enable a wide range of indicators, including:
  - indicators of energy and emission intensity;
  - indicators concerning carbon taxes and emission permits;
  - indicators of expenditure on climate change-related responses.
- System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012 – Applications and Extensions (United Nations, European Commission, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and World Bank (2017)) provides guidance on:
  - structural decomposition analysis; and
  - footprinting to estimate emissions embodied in imported and exported goods and services from both production and consumption perspectives.
- SEEA account data can support climate change modelling focused on implications of projected climate change scenarios on economic activity.

### Carbon stock accounts and net ecosystem carbon balance
- Indicators can be derived directly from carbon stock accounts or combined with other information (for example, on land cover, land use, population and industry value added).
- These indicators support policymakers, researchers and the public and can be linked to measuring Sustainable Development Goal 13: “Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts”.
- One specific indicator:
  - net ecosystem carbon balance — a metric for measuring carbon sequestration related to change in the stock of carbon in selected reservoirs over an accounting period.
    - Common focus: biocarbon.
    - Scope may also include parts of geocarbon, carbon in the economy and carbon in other reservoirs depending on analysis.
- Carbon carrying capacities may be estimated, subject to appropriate assumptions, to support land-use decision-making where there are significant competing uses of land for food and fibre.

### Accounting for the ocean — context and need
- Coastal and marine areas support economic and human activity and are critical for climate and global ecosystem health; demand and anthropogenic pressures are rapidly increasing.
- Integrated and standardized ocean-related accounts can support near-term policy and long-term sustainability by linking measures of economic activity, social context and ecosystem condition.
- Key international initiatives and milestones mentioned:
  - Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021–2030) began in 2021; General Assembly resolution 72/73 of 5 December 2017.
  - UN-Oceans updating the First Global Integrated Marine Assessment: World Ocean Assessment I.
  - OECD supporting assessment of the ocean economy.
  - High-level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy developed an action agenda including ocean accounts.
  - IPCC released an assessment of the ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate (IPCC, 2019).

### Ocean accounts framework — scope and components
- Conceptual inclusion: coastal and marine areas are included in the SNA, the SEEA Central Framework and SEEA EA, but measurement boundaries differ and ocean data are more fragmented.
- Ocean accounts are designed to link contributing accounts (extent and condition, flows of ecosystem services) and add accounts for natural resources and physical flows (pressures), the ocean economy, and governance, management and technology.
- A comprehensive set of ocean accounts enables monitoring of:
  - changes in ocean ecosystem extent and condition and associated flows of ecosystem services;
  - changes in ocean wealth, including produced assets (e.g. ports) and non-produced assets (e.g. mangroves, coral reefs);
  - ocean-related income and welfare for different groups of people (e.g. income from fisheries for local communities);
  - ocean-based economic production (e.g. GDP from ocean-related sectors);
  - changes in ocean governance and management (e.g. ocean zoning, regulatory rules and responsibilities, social circumstances).
- Ocean assets recorded by combining:
  - SEEA Central Framework accounts for individual environmental assets (minerals, energy and aquatic resources such as fish stocks); and
  - SEEA EA ecosystem assets.
- Special attention required for:
  - treatment of migrating fish stocks; and
  - assets beyond the EEZ whose management may not be captured in Central Framework accounts or the SNA.

### Ocean ecosystem extent, condition and services
- Coastal and marine ecosystems treated in accordance with SEEA EA; extent and condition accounts describe ecosystems.
  - For transitional ecosystems (estuaries, tidal flats), applying IUCN GET links to terrestrial and freshwater ecosystem accounts.
  - Challenges include reflecting three dimensions of marine areas (depth in addition to area) and capturing changes in condition.
- Ocean services include ecosystem services and abiotic flows (e.g. mineral extraction, energy capture).
  - Examples of ocean ecosystem services: provision of biomass (wild fish and aquaculture), coastal protection and tidal surge mitigation, water purification, nursery population and habitat maintenance, recreation-related services and visual amenity services.
  - These services should be recorded in ecosystem services flow accounts in physical and monetary terms.
- SEEA Central Framework guidance on pressures (air emissions, water emissions, solid wastes) can be spatially detailed by catchment area to estimate quantities flowing to the ocean.

### Ocean economy, governance and indicators
- Ocean economy measurement:
  - Contribution of main ocean-related activities (e.g. marine transportation, coastal tourism, marine fishing, offshore mineral and gas extraction) to the national economy.
  - Use of satellite accounting principles per SNA guidance to measure contribution to GDP and GVA.
  - Additional detail for partially related activities (e.g. shipping, boatbuilding).
  - Potential to add economic value of ecosystem services not counted in SNA sectors following supply and use principles.
- Ocean governance accounts aim to provide spatially explicit, location-based information for sustainable use decision-making and include:
  - institutional and legal frameworks (zoning, rules, decision-making institutions);
  - social circumstances of affected populations;
  - measures of ocean-related risks and resilience.
  - Spatial overlays of data topics can show which ecosystem types are under which types of ocean management.
- Ocean accounts share common data needs with communities of practice for marine spatial planning, disaster risk and climate change; a community of practice seeks standardization and data sharing.

### Global and transboundary considerations; data availability
- Much of the ocean is area beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), creating opportunities to compile global ocean accounts using data collected by international agencies.
- Global Ocean Data Inventory (compiled by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific) is organized using ocean accounts components and indicates:
  - substantial data available for ecosystem extent and condition for ABNJ;
  - data on pressures, services and beneficiaries are underrepresented and require additional data and monitoring.
- Adjacent coastal countries can compile comparable ocean accounts to better understand transboundary impacts, including flows to and from ABNJ.

### Pilots and applications
- Pilot studies using the ocean accounts framework have addressed policy-relevant questions:
  - Samoa, Thailand and Viet Nam: sustainable tourism linking tourism income, natural resource use, land-based pollution and ecosystem impacts.
  - China: harmonized mangrove maps and improved understanding of mangrove environmental assets in Beihai Bay.
  - Malaysia: examined food security risk concerning fish along the Straits of Malacca under expected future climate variability.
- All pilots depended on available data that were often limited; the framework guided the search for and integration of data.

### Indicators derived from ocean accounts
- Ocean accounts allow derivation of SEEA EA indicators as well as ocean-specific indicators for:
  - ocean conditions (e.g. acidification, concentrations of marine debris);
  - ocean-related beneficiaries (e.g. income of small-scale fishers).
- Linkage to SEEA Central Framework enables inclusion of:
  - indicators of subnational sources of pressures (e.g. solid waste supply and use by catchment area);
  - separate accounts for individual environmental assets of the ocean (e.g. marine fish, offshore oil and gas);
  - accounts tracking environmental protection and other ocean expenditures.
- Ocean economy satellite accounting provides indicators for the contribution of ocean-related sectors to national economies.
- Governance-focused indicators add measures on actors/institutions, norms and behavioural relationships (e.g. location of ocean assets, extent of use, designated use).
- A list of indicators derived from ocean accounts is presented in appendix A13.3.
- Scientifically supported statistics of ocean ecosystem condition are relevant, measured across categories such as biodiversity, ecosystem fitness, biogeochemical cycling, physiochemical quality and GHG retention (table 13.4).
  - Global Ocean Accounts Partnership and GOOS are developing core ocean statistics and essential ocean variables (EOVs) for biology, including biodiversity, from which essential biodiversity variables could be derived.

*seeaeaea - 13.74  There  is  a  wide  range  of  indicators  concerning  climate  change  that  may  be (PDF chapter/section)*

### 13.99 Accounting for ecosystem assets and services in urban areas is of increasing

### seeaeaea - 13.99 Accounting for ecosystem assets and services in urban areas is of increasing

### Importance and applications of urban ecosystem accounts
- Accounting for ecosystem assets and services in urban areas is of increasing importance considering the large and growing proportion of the world population living in cities.
- Regular and integrated information organized within the SEEA framework provides the basis for a transparent approach to informing the type of green urban development that delivers better outcomes for people and improves the ecological quality of urban environments.
- Urban ecosystem accounts can support:
  - strategic planning and policy-setting;
  - communication and awareness-raising;
  - economic accounting;
  - urban planning including peri-urban and coastal development;
  - management of water resources and water treatment;
  - regulating and maintenance services (e.g. local climate regulation, air filtration, flood mitigation);
  - renewable energy sources and management of recreational opportunities.

### Scales, motivations, and decision-making uses
- Accounts can be compiled and used at international, national, subnational and municipal levels depending on data scale and aggregation:
  - National coverage: focus on drawing out common features and ecosystem service flows across all urban areas in a country.
  - Single urban area coverage: focus on specific local issues and complementary valuations.
- Benefit of accounting principles, particularly locally: integrate data on a consistent basis over time to consolidate disparate one-off reports for better decision-making.
- Urban ecosystem accounts with sufficient spatial detail (potentially extending down to property-level resolutions) can support trade-off analysis or benefit-cost analysis for spatial planning and design of policy instruments such as ecosystem services user charges.
- High-resolution mapping (e.g., capturing individual tree canopy size and height) can support compliance monitoring and litigation of environmental damages (e.g., resulting from illegal tree felling).

### Defining urban accounting area (EAA) and boundaries
- Urban ecosystem accounts can be compiled using different boundary definitions:
  - administrative boundaries (local government boundary);
  - functional boundaries (e.g. based on commuting flows as defined by census data);
  - morphological criteria (extent of the built-up area plus a buffer zone).
- Selection of criteria depends on anticipated purpose and users of the urban accounts.

### Classification approaches for urban ecosystem subtypes
- Urban areas often follow a gradient from less developed periphery to developed urban core and may contain significant urban green cover (yards, parks, cemeteries, street trees, green roofs).
- Two main classification approaches:
  - Landscape approach:
    - Disaggregate entire urban area into larger contiguous patches with common characteristics (e.g. compact high-rise, compact low-rise, open low-rise, sparsely built, paved).
    - Condition characteristics (e.g. percentage of impervious/pervious surfaces, soil contaminant concentrations) included in condition accounts as landscape-level measures.
    - Tends to support municipal planning and zoning integration across sectors.
    - Referenced figures: Figure 13.3 (local climate zone classification of Stewart and Oke (2009)); Figure 13.4 (high-resolution thematic focus mapping of urban tree canopy asset extent and height).
    - Table examples: Table 13.5 (extent account presentation using the landscape approach); Table 13.6 (condition account presentation using the landscape approach).
  - Individual asset approach:
    - Tracks individual asset types at as fine a scale as possible (e.g. lines of street trees, playgrounds, allotment gardens, green roofs, drainage and storage systems) using very high resolution (10 metres or less) satellite imagery or other spatial data sets.
    - Defines ecosystem assets as areas of green and blue infrastructure that provide ecosystem services and permits reporting on condition of these assets.
    - Tends to support thematic and sector policies specific to municipal sector agencies (urban forestry, urban agriculture, stormwater management).
    - Table example: Table 13.7 (extent account presentation using the individual asset approach).

### Asset delineation and airshed consideration
- The classification approach and level of aggregation determine the distinction between extent accounts and condition accounts.
- Condition indicators that are predictors of urban ecosystem services should be selected; thematic environmental quality and biodiversity indicators can also be compiled for other purposes.
- In some contexts, it may be appropriate to distinguish the urban airshed as a separate asset to support distinct recording of air quality as an overall condition indicator; generally, allocation to locations and areas within the urban area is preferred.

### Typical urban ecosystem services to account for
- Urban ecosystem services supply and use accounts may emphasize a different basket of services reflecting the functions of urban ecosystems:
  - Water regulation
  - Local climate regulation
  - Air filtration
  - Noise attenuation
  - Recreation-related services
  - Visual amenity services
- Table example: Table 13.8 (example service account presentation using the landscape approach) lists provisioning, regulating, cultural, and amenity services across urban/built-up sub-classes and natural and semi-natural types.

### Measurement issues, limitations, and resolution needs
- Key measurement challenges specific to urban areas:
  - Accurate detection of change at small spatial scales is critical because areas of change may be finer than input land cover classification precision.
  - Substitution possibilities between ecosystem and man-made services are more apparent in urban areas.
  - Spatial patterns in supply driven by biophysical variation, while spatial variation in demand (e.g. population location and movement) may not be detectable at the same resolution.
  - Heterogeneous use factors related to population density, socioeconomic and cultural diversity, substitution possibilities, qualitative values and non-linear distance decay of benefits can cause variations in beneficiaries and valuation results, particularly for recreational and amenity services.
- For municipal-level applications, urban ecosystem accounts need close alignment with municipal environmental administration organization; often a combined landscape and asset approach is required.

### Monetary valuation and municipal-specific uses
- Monetary valuation may be undertaken for municipal-level applications (e.g. cost-benefit analysis of zoning and user charges, calculation of asset values).
- Monetary accounts compiled using exchange values can support municipal budget allocation to asset investment and maintenance (green and blue infrastructure, nature-based solutions).
- Complementary values may be necessary to provide a wider assessment of social benefits from different policies.
- Municipal monetary valuation requires higher temporal and spatial resolutions and improved change detection compared with national-level accounts; pooling data across many decision-making units and thematic, policy-purpose-specific accounts may be needed.

### Example account presentations and condition variables
- Table examples included in the source:
  - Table 13.5: Example extent account presentation using the landscape approach (shows Opening extent (km2), Additions to extent, Reductions in extent, Net change in extent, Closing extent (km2) across urban/built-up and natural/semi-natural sub-classes).
  - Table 13.6: Example condition account presentation using the landscape approach (example condition variables and measurement units: Water quality g/l; Air pollutant concentrations ppm; Soil contaminant concentrations g/kg; Soil sealing/imperviousness %; Greenness %; Canopy cover m2; Street trees km).
  - Table 13.7: Example extent account presentation using the individual asset approach (lists example urban ecosystem assets and Opening/Closing extent (km2), Additions/Reductions, Net change).
  - Table 13.8: Example service account presentation using the landscape approach (examples of provisioning, regulating, cultural and amenity services by urban/built-up sub-classes and natural/semi-natural types).
- Abbreviations noted in tables: g/l, ppm, g/kg, m2, km.

### Potential indicators and relevance to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
- Useful summary-level indicators from urban ecosystem accounts include:
  - Change in extent of areas converted from natural or semi-natural ecosystem types to residential areas with associated infrastructures (tracks urban expansion and loss of natural/semi-natural areas).
  - Indicators focusing on land degradation concepts (e.g. percentage of contaminated or brownfield areas and reclaimed areas).
  - Indicators tracking the role of urban green and blue spaces in moderating air and water pollution, mitigating heat islands, and accessibility to green and blue spaces.
- Relevance to SDGs and specific indicators:
  - SDG indicator 15.3.1: Proportion of land that is degraded over total land area (change in extent/condition of lands converted to residential areas is relevant).
  - SDG 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable, including relevance for:
    - Indicator 11.3.1: Ratio of land consumption rate to population growth rate
    - Indicator 11.4.1: Total per capita expenditure on the preservation, protection and conservation of all cultural and natural heritage, by source of funding (public, private), type of heritage (cultural, natural) and level of government (national, regional and local/municipal)
    - Indicator 11.6.2: Annual mean levels of fine particulate matter (e.g. PM2.5 and PM10) in cities (population-weighted)
    - Indicator 11.7.1: Average share of the built-up area of cities that is open space for public use for all, by sex, age and persons with disabilities
- Ecosystem accounts support municipal planning and policy analysis including equitable distribution of municipal ecosystem services, requiring disaggregation to districts, councils, boroughs and census tracts.

*Content unit: seeaeaea - 13.99 Accounting for ecosystem assets and services in urban areas is of increasing*

### chapter III of the SEEA Central Framework. Account structures for five physical flows

### chapter III of the SEEA Central Framework. Account structures for five physical flows

### Account structures for five physical flows (water, energy, air emissions, emissions to water, solid waste)
- Purpose: record flows from the environment to the economy, within the economy and from the economy to the environment; aligned with footprinting to trace use of specific substances through economic activities and products.
- Applicability: physical flow accounting principles can record flows for all elements, substances and materials (examples: nitrogen, phosphorus, heavy metals, carbon at an elemental level, and economy-wide material flows measured in mass).
- Measurement requirement: the same measurement unit (e.g. tons, cubic metres) must be applied within a single account.
- Focus for SEEA Central Framework: measuring flows for each substance at a national level and integrating with national-level measures of economic activity (derivable macro indicators include water use in agriculture, energy use in manufacturing, air emissions from the transport industry).
- Thematic and ecosystem accounting: scope must align with geographical area, spatial detail and economic units; adjusted flow accounts (e.g. for ocean accounting) follow the Central Framework framing but require additional location detail (e.g. breakdown by catchment) and possibly additional industry/emission-type detail.

### Asset accounts (land use, natural resources, water resources)
- General logic: record opening and closing stocks in physical or monetary terms and additions/reductions (including regeneration and depletion). Accounting identity: opening stock + additions – reductions = closing stock.
- Thematic application: asset accounting principles apply to species accounts, carbon accounts, fish species by location, and support compilation of ecosystem services flow accounts.
- Geographical area: a clearly defined accounting area (small or large) is required to ensure measurement focus and linkages; cross-classification by types of area within the wider accounting area may be relevant (example: carbon stocks cross-classified by ecosystem type).
- Water resources asset account (section 5.11 of SEEA Central Framework):
  - Records opening and closing stocks of water for various types of inland water bodies: lakes, rivers and streams, and groundwater.
  - Records additions: precipitation, inflows, transfers between other water bodies, returns from the economy.
  - Records reductions: abstraction by economic units, evaporation, outflows (e.g. to the sea), transfers to other water bodies.
  - Comprehensively documents the hydrological cycle for inland water resources; wastewater-related flows are also captured.
- Spatial detail challenge: compiling data at high spatial detail requires standard hydrological modelling; adaptation of SEEA framing is needed to incorporate more detail on transfers of water between parts of a catchment or water body.
- Recommendation: ecosystem account compilers are encouraged to work with hydrological modellers to compile detailed water resources asset accounts and ensure coherence between opening and closing stock positions.

### Additional detail concerning accounting for carbon (Appendix A13.2)
- Purpose: provide additional details on structure and accounting entries related to the carbon stock account (table 13.3 referenced).
- Carbon stock disaggregation:
  - geocarbon
  - biocarbon
  - carbon accumulated in the economy
  - carbon in the oceans (inorganic only)
  - carbon in the atmosphere
- Geocarbon: all carbon in the Earth’s lithosphere excluding organic carbon in dead biomass; includes organic geocarbon (e.g. oil and gas transformed from biosphere carbon) and is further disaggregated into: oil, gas, coal resources, rocks (primarily limestone and marls) and minerals (e.g. carbonate rocks used in cement production), methane clathrates and inorganic carbon in marine sediments.
- Biocarbon: all organic carbon in the biosphere (living biomass and dead biomass including soil organic matter and sedimentary organic matter); includes biomass in crops and grass in meadows (not part of carbon accumulated in the economy); carbon stored in livestock and in timber products is considered part of carbon in the economy.
- Classification: biocarbon is classified by ecosystem type according to the three main realms at the highest level of IUCN GET (marine, freshwater and saline wetlands, terrestrial); recommendation to separately record carbon in agricultural and other anthropogenic systems to distinguish natural/semi-natural from anthropogenic ecosystems.
- Stability and resilience: stability of biosphere carbon stocks depends on ecosystem characteristics and biodiversity; natural ecosystems can accumulate large carbon amounts over centuries to millenniums; semi-modified and highly modified ecosystems generally accumulate smaller carbon stocks.
- Atmosphere: contains carbon mainly as CO2 and methane; acts as a receiving environment for carbon from geocarbon, biocarbon and economy emissions; carbon removal may occur via biocarbon sequestration; CO2 and methane act as GHGs and are highly policy-relevant.
- Oceans: receiving environments for carbon from primary reservoirs and economy accumulations; includes only inorganic carbon (carbonates dissolved in seawater); living and non-living organic carbon in oceans is part of biocarbon; carbonate particulates (e.g. shells) in sediments are part of geocarbon.
- Accumulations in the economy disaggregation (SNA components):
  - fixed assets (e.g. concrete in buildings, bitumen in roads, livestock)
  - inventories (e.g. petroleum products in storage, excluding those included in cultivated ecosystems)
  - consumer durables (e.g. wood and plastic products)
  - waste
- Further disaggregation of accumulations: biobased (derived from plants or animals) and non-biobased (fossil fuels, mineral (inorganic) products and synthetic materials (plastics)).
- Waste accounting convention: waste products stored in controlled landfill sites are treated as part of the economy.
- Geo-sequestration: carbon stored through geo-sequestration (managed injecting of gaseous CO2 into the Earth) is treated as a flow within the economy (increase in accumulations); subsequent release to the environment is treated as a residual flow with a reduction in accumulations matched by an increase in atmospheric carbon.
- Account presentation: follows the SEEA asset account form: opening stock, additions, reductions, closing stock. Additions and reductions split between managed and unmanaged expansion and contraction. Additional rows for imports and exports included (making the table a stock account distinct from an asset account).

- Five types of additions in the carbon stock account:
  - Unmanaged expansion: increases due to natural growth or indirect human impacts; recorded only for biocarbon; may arise from climatic variation, ecological factors, CO2 fertilization effect.
  - Managed expansion: increases due to direct human activities; recorded for biocarbon in ecosystems and accumulations in the economy (inventories, consumer durables, fixed assets, waste in controlled landfill sites); includes GHGs injected into the Earth; includes all increases due to carbon input flows directly related to human activities; all emissions related to land use, LULUCF, are included here (or in managed contractions, depending on the carbon stock).
  - Discoveries of new stock: emergence of new resources through exploration and evaluation; applies exclusively to geocarbon.
  - Reclassifications of carbon stocks: changes where ecosystem asset use changes (example: increase in carbon in semi-natural ecosystems following establishment of a national park offset by equivalent decrease in cultivated ecosystems); reclassifications may have no impact on total physical carbon during the period.
  - Imports: enable accounting for imports of produced goods (e.g. petroleum products) that contain carbon.

- Five types of reductions in the carbon stock account:
  - Unmanaged contractions: natural losses expected during the accounting period; may be due to changing ecosystem distribution or losses from episodic events (drought, some fires, floods, pest attacks, disease outbreaks) and losses due to volcanic eruptions, tidal waves and hurricanes.
  - Managed contractions: reductions due to direct human activities including removal/harvest (mining fossil fuels, felling timber); extraction includes quantities that flow through the economy as products (including waste) and quantities immediately returned to the environment (e.g. felling residues); includes losses from war, riots, political events and technological accidents (major toxic releases); all emissions related to LULUCF included here (or in managed expansions, depending on the carbon stock).
  - Reclassifications of carbon stocks: opposite direction example to additions; reclassifications have no impact on total physical carbon during the period.
  - Exports: enable accounting for exports of produced goods (e.g. petroleum products) that contain carbon.
  - Catastrophic losses: not a single entry but allocated between managed contraction and unmanaged contraction. Catastrophic losses in managed contraction include deliberately lit fires to reduce risk of uncontrolled fires and human accidents such as rupture of oil wells; catastrophic losses could be separately identified.

- Note on soil carbon measurement: with respect to biocarbon in soils, only the top 30 centimetres are considered in this study, resulting in a significant underestimation, particularly for peat and peaty soils; this limitation may affect measurement of carbon flows where there are changes in the water table below this depth.

### Variables and indicators from ocean accounts (Appendix A13.3)
- Ocean-related biomes (codes listed):
  - SM1 Subterranean tidal biome
  - FM1 Transitional waters biome (Freshwater-Marine)
  - M1 Marine shelfs biome
  - M2 Pelagic ocean waters biome
  - M3 Deep-sea floors biome
  - M4 Anthropogenic marine systems biome
  - MT1 Shorelines biome
  - MT2 Supralittoral coastal systems biome
  - MT3 Anthropogenic shorelines biome
  - MFT1 Brackish tidal biome
  - Total

- Physical ocean assets and ecosystem assets:
  - Area (ha)
  - Change in area from previous accounting period (%)

- Individual environmental assets (examples and units):
  - Minerals (tons)
  - Energy (PJ)
  - Fish (tons)
  - Timber (e.g. mangrove) (m3)
  - Other flora available for harvesting (e.g. seaweed) (tons dry weight)

- Monetary ocean assets (NPV of expected flow of services) (currency units):
  - Ecosystem assets: Value (currency units)
  - Change in value from previous accounting period (%)
  - Individual environmental assets: Minerals; Energy; Fish; Timber (e.g. mangrove); Other flora available for harvesting

- Condition of ocean assets (for marine and coastal ecosystems):
  - Acidification (pH)
  - Eutrophication (BOD, COD, chlorophyll a concentrations)
  - Temperature (°C)
  - Plastics density (g/m3)
  - Biodiversity (Shannon index)
  - Health (index)

- Condition for individual environmental assets (examples):
  - Minerals (quality, accessibility)
  - Energy (quality, accessibility)
  - Fish (quality in terms of size, age, health)
  - Timber (e.g. mangrove) (quality, accessibility)
  - Other flora available for harvesting (e.g. seaweed) (quality, health)

- Physical ocean services:
  - Ocean ecosystem services: as in SEEA EA ecosystem services list (specific units)
  - Other ocean services (examples): Seawater for cooling (m3); Sand (tons); Petroleum (megalitres, PJ)

- Monetary ocean services:
  - Ocean ecosystem services: as in SEEA EA ecosystem services list (appropriate valuation techniques)
  - Other ocean services (examples): Seawater for cooling (market or equivalent value); Sand (market or equivalent value); Petroleum (market or equivalent value)

- Pressures (flows to the environment) — selected entries:
  - Water emissions flows to the ocean:
    - BOD/COD (tons)
    - Suspended solids (tons)
    - Bilge (m3)
    - Heavy metals (tons)
  - Solid waste flows to the ocean:
    - Chemical and health-care waste (tons)

*Source: chapter III and Appendices A13.2–A13.3 of the SEEA Central Framework (seeaeaea - chapter III of the SEEA Central Framework. Account structures for five physical flows).*

### Appendix A13.3:  Variables and indicators from ocean accounts

### Appendix A13.3:  Variables and indicators from ocean accounts

### Ocean-related biomes and reported variables
- Biome codes and names (as listed):
  - SM1 Subterranean tidal biome
  - FM1 Transitional waters biome (Freshwater-Marine)
  - M1 Marine shelfs biome
  - M2 Pelagic ocean waters biome
  - M3 Deep-sea floors biome
  - M4 Anthropogenic marine systems biome
  - MT1 Shorelines biome
  - MT2 Supralittoral coastal systems biome
  - MT3 Anthropogenic shorelines biome
  - MFT1 Brackish tidal biome
  - Total

- Reported material and flow variables (units preserved):
  - Metallic waste (tons)
  - Mineral waste and soil (tons)
  - Mixed residential and commercial waste (tons)
  - Plastics (tons)
  - Radioactive waste (tons)
  - Other waste (tons)
  - Wastewater flows to the ocean (m3)
  - Air emissions flows to the ocean (examples)
    - CO2 (tons)
    - Methane (tons)

- Ocean economy variables:
  - Contribution of ocean sectors to national economy (GVA, % GDP)
    - By sector (fishing/aquaculture, offshore oil and gas, boat- and shipbuilding, etc.)
  - Contribution of ocean sectors to national employment (FTE, %)
    - By sector (fishing/aquaculture, offshore oil and gas, boat- and shipbuilding, etc.)

- Ocean governance and management variables:
  - Zoning
    - Jurisdictional zone: internal waters, territorial sea, EEZ (area)
    - Management or planning zone: protected area, private property, use designation (area)
  - Rules- and decision-making institutions
    - By activity: fishing, wind farm development, marine spatial planning (institution)

- Social and risk/resilience variables:
  - Social circumstances of resident populations (examples)
    - Health (index), economic equity (GINI), poverty (% below low income)
  - Risk and resilience (examples)
    - Flood/storm surge, sea level rise, coastal storm risk (vulnerability, occurrence)
    - Resilience: disaster plan in place, adequate supplies and facilities (yes/no)
  - Environmental protection expenditures ($)
  - Value of environmental goods and services sector ($) (see “Ocean economy” above)
  - Environmental taxes less subsidies ($)

- Notes and abbreviations preserved from source:
  - Abbreviations: BOD, biological oxygen demand; COD, chemical oxygen demand; EEZ, exclusive economic zone; FTE, full-time equivalent; g, gram; GDP, gross domestic product; GVA, gross value added; ha, hectare; m3, cubic metre; NPV, net present value; PJ, petajoule.
  - Footnote excerpts (verbatim where numeric/dates appear):
    - a: Specific condition indicators for each ecosystem type are provided in Technical Guidance on Ocean Accounting for Sustainable Development, a background document prepared by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific for the fifty-first session of the Statistical Commission, held from 3 to 6 March 2020.
    - b: Flows should include (a) those generated by terrestrial catchment areas, (b) those from marine sources, (c) inflows from other territories and (d) outflows to other territories (including international waters).
    - c: Air emissions should be estimates of quantities deposited in the ocean, distinguishing between national and international territory.
    - d: The ocean accounts framework provides a comprehensive list of ocean-related sectors. The location of economic activities could be classified by ecosystem type.
    - e: Other examples of use designation include aquaculture, energy development, submarine cable corridor, locally managed marine area.
    - f: Resident population includes those dependent on the ocean economy and those living near the ocean.
    - g: The environmental goods and services sector may be embedded in the ocean economy as ocean-dependent sectors.
    - h: Indicators may be presented for larger groupings or in more detail by ocean-related EFGs. It is to be noted that there may be vertical overlap of some of the biomes (e.g. subterranean tidal biomes with shoreline systems biomes). In this case, ideally, indicators would be presented separately for the intersection of those biomes (e.g. subterranean below shoreline).

---

### Chapter 14: Indicators and combined presentations — overview
- Chapter scope and purpose:
  - Indicators summarize data and convey trends on topics of specific policy relevance.
  - SEEA EA supports derivation of indicators that are more coherent and consistent by integrating data from multiple sources.
  - Chapter describes ways ecosystem accounts can be used to derive indicators and combined with other accounts to show links between economy and environment.

- Structure of chapter content:
  - Section 14.2: roles and functions of SEEA EA-based indicators and examples.
  - Section 14.3: links of SEEA to reporting on global environmental goals.
  - Section 14.4: introduction to combined presentations of different accounts.

---

### Roles and functions of SEEA EA indicators
- Definition and indicator types:
  - An indicator: representation of data for a specified time, place or other characteristic, corrected for at least one dimension.
  - Three main types of indicators:
    - Aggregates: grouped statistics (e.g., summing areas of ecosystem types across an EAA).
    - Composite indices: different variables combined using weighting (e.g., ecosystem condition index).
    - Ratio indicators: combine data from different accounts (e.g., flows of ecosystem services per hectare).

- Purposes and audiences:
  - Purposes:
    - Reveal relative positions or change over time.
    - Input into national and global policies, set targets, and monitor achievement.
    - Aggregate fine-level geospatial data to subnational or national trends.
    - Support forecasting and early estimates using benchmark data.
  - Target audiences:
    - Decision makers and policy‑makers in business and government, non-governmental organizations, environmental economists, ecologists, academia and the general public.

- Benefits of deriving indicators from SEEA EA:
  - Provision of a stable conceptual framework for new indicators.
  - Broad framework enabling contextualization and disaggregation of indicators.
  - Enables analysis, forecasting, and projections from coherent source data.
  - Supports derivation of early estimates and clarifies data needs.
  - Alignment with the SNA ensures consistency between economic and environmental information.

- Integration role:
  - SEEA EA reconciles disparate basic data (surveys, scientific measurements, geospatial data, administrative data, censuses) into a unified framework for indicator derivation.
  - Figure 14.1 (Information pyramid) links Basic data → Frameworks → Accounts → Indicators.

---

### Indicators derived from ecosystem accounts — categories and examples
- General points:
  - Most indicators in this section are output indicators directly generated from SEEA EA accounts.
  - Indicators can be crosswalked to socioeconomic measures to produce integrated measures (e.g., adjusted macroeconomic measures, costs of restoration, ecosystem capacity).
  - Indicators can address distributional and environmental justice issues via aggregation/disaggregation to administrative units.

- Indicators from ecosystem extent accounts:
  - Scope:
    - Describes extent of ecosystem types in an accounting area and changes within an accounting period.
    - Ecosystem types based on IUCN GET: four realms, 24 biomes, 98 EFGs; alternative aggregations possible.
  - Potential indicators (selection reflected in Table 14.1):
    - Extent indicators (spatial unit: EAA; disaggregation: Ecosystem type; measurement unit: Hectares; % of total EAA; % of opening)
      - EAA covered by specific types or areas of interest including:
        - Urban areas (IUCN GET T7.4)
        - Cultivated areas (IUCN GET T7.1, T7.2, T7.3)
        - Forests (IUCN GET T1, T2)
        - Wetlands (IUCN GET F1, F2, TF1, FM1, MFT1)
        - Coastal areas (IUCN GET M1, MT1, MT2, MT3, MFT1)
    - Change indicators (spatial unit: EAA; disaggregation: Ecosystem type; measurement unit: % of opening)
      - Change of area covered by specific ecosystem types during an accounting period (same ecosystem lists as above)
      - Percentage of area unchanged (opening stock – reduction) (EAA; Ecosystem type; % of opening)
    - Possibility: indicator of changes in area of natural ecosystems compared with anthropogenic and semi-natural ecosystems (requires definition in context of IUCN GET).

- Indicators from ecosystem condition accounts:
  - Purpose:
    - Records state and functioning of ecosystem assets within an EAA via variables and indicators reflecting changes over time.
    - Compiled in physical terms.
  - Composite measures:
    - Ecosystem condition indexes and subindexes (Table 14.2) are composite indicators aggregated from ecosystem condition indicators using compatible reference levels (e.g., common reference condition).
    - Many scientific condition indicators can be integrated into SEEA EA for aggregation.

- Indicators from physical ecosystem services flow accounts:
  - Description:
    - Describe ecosystem services generated by an ecosystem asset in volume terms.
    - Services grouped under provisioning, regulating and maintenance, and cultural services.
  - Indicator focus and linkages:
    - Commonly focus on ecological supply side in physical units (e.g., cubic metres, tons).
    - Can focus on use of ecosystem services and be broken down by user types (e.g., household income levels) to assess dependence by groups.
    - May be expressed in monetary terms if valuation undertaken and can be linked to economic data (e.g., value added, employment).

- Indicators from monetary ecosystem services flow account and ecosystem asset account:
  - Monetary ecosystem services flow accounts:
    - Describe ecosystem services generated by an ecosystem asset in monetary terms.
  - Monetary ecosystem asset account:
    - Describes opening and closing exchange value of ecosystem assets over an accounting period based on the NPV of bundles of ecosystem services under current use/institutional regime.
    - When compiled for multiple years, records the cost of degradation and/or enhancement (e.g., restoration) of ecosystem assets identifiable by exchange value.

*International Monetary Fund. Appendix A13.3 and Chapter 14 excerpts from System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (source PDF).*

### 14.24  Many  SEEA  EA  indicators  in  monetary  terms  are  aggregates  derived  from

### seeaeaea - 14.24  Many  SEEA  EA  indicators  in  monetary  terms  are  aggregates  derived  from

### Monetary aggregates and indicator derivation
- Many SEEA EA indicators in monetary terms are aggregates derived from adding and subtracting relevant entries in individual monetary accounts such as the ecosystem services flow account and the monetary ecosystem asset account.
- Aggregates can be defined in different ways by determining different types of inclusions and exclusions.
- Other monetary indicators can be derived by comparing aggregates with other economic data such as total value of other assets, expected ecosystem restoration costs or value added of industries dependent on ecosystem services or at risk if ecosystem services are lost.
- Because the data on different ecosystem services and ecosystem types are expressed using a common metric (i.e. currency units), comparisons and ratios can be estimated, for example, showing the relative shares of provisioning, regulating and maintenance, and cultural services.
- It is relevant to analyse indicators in monetary terms in combination with data in physical terms, for example, in relation to flows of ecosystem services in physical terms or in relation to extent and condition of different ecosystem types.

### Potential indicators on ecosystem condition (from Table 14.2)
- Overall ecosystem condition index — Spatial unit: EAA — Disaggregation: Ecosystem type, ecosystem condition classes — Measurement unit: Index
- Physical state indicator — Further description: Overall physical state characteristics of an ecosystem asset (including soil structure, water availability, ocean temperature) — Spatial unit: Ecosystem type — Disaggregation: Ecosystem condition subclasses — Measurement unit: Index
- Chemical state indicator — Further description: Overall chemical state characteristics of an ecosystem asset (including soil nutrient levels, water quality, biogeochemistry, air pollutant concentrations) — Spatial unit: Ecosystem type — Disaggregation: Ecosystem condition subclasses — Measurement unit: Index
- Compositional state indicator — Further description: Overall compositional state characteristics of an ecosystem asset (including species diversity) — Spatial unit: Ecosystem type — Disaggregation: Ecosystem condition subclasses — Measurement unit: Index
- Structural state indicator — Further description: Overall structural state characteristics of an ecosystem asset (including vegetation (and biotic structure), biomass, food chains) — Spatial unit: Ecosystem type — Disaggregation: Ecosystem condition subclasses — Measurement unit: Index
- Functional state indicator — Further description: Overall functional state characteristics of an ecosystem asset (including ecosystem process, disturbances regimes) — Spatial unit: Ecosystem type — Disaggregation: Ecosystem condition subclasses — Measurement unit: Index
- Landscape/ seascape indicator — Further description: Overall characteristics of landscape/seascape (including landscape diversity, connectivity fragmentation, embedded semi-natural elements in farmland, coastal engineering) — Spatial unit: Ecosystem type — Disaggregation: Ecosystem condition subclasses — Measurement unit: Index

### Potential indicators on physical ecosystem services flows (from Table 14.3)
- Amount of biomass harvested, including crops, grazed biomass, livestock, wood, non-wood forest products and fish — Physical ecosystem services flow indicator: Biomass provisioning services — Spatial unit: EAA — Disaggregation: Ecosystem type; type of biomass — Measurement unit: Tons
- Water abstracted for use by households and industry (proxy measure) — Physical ecosystem services flow indicator: Water supply services — Spatial unit: EAA — Disaggregation: Ecosystem type — Measurement unit: Cubic metres
- Quantity of carbon retained (captured and stored/ trend in carbon sequestered) — Physical ecosystem services flow indicator: Global climate regulation services — Spatial unit: EAA — Disaggregation: Ecosystem type — Measurement unit: Tons
- Quantity of airborne pollutants captured (e.g. PM10; PM2.5) — Physical ecosystem services flow indicator: Air filtration services — Spatial unit: EAA — Disaggregation: Ecosystem type; type of pollutant — Measurement unit: Tons
- Quantity of waterborne pollutants removed (e.g. chemical oxygen demand) from wastewater — Physical ecosystem services flow indicator: Water purification services — Spatial unit: EAA — Disaggregation: Ecosystem type; type of pollutant — Measurement unit: Tons
- Number of properties/km of coast/shoreline/riparian zone protected; change in degree of risk — Physical ecosystem services flow indicator: Flood mitigation services — Spatial unit: EAA — Disaggregation: Ecosystem type — Measurement unit: Count/km
- Number of tourist/recreational visits — Physical ecosystem services flow indicator: Recreation-related services — Spatial unit: EAA — Disaggregation: Ecosystem type — Measurement unit: Count

### Potential monetary indicators for ecosystem services and assets (from Table 14.4)
- Gross ecosystem product (GEP) — Further description: GEP is equal to the sum of all ES at their exchange value supplied by all ecosystem types located within an EAA over an accounting period less the net imports of intermediate services (for additional details, see para. 9.18 above) — Spatial unit: EAA — Disaggregation: Ecosystem type; ecosystem services classes — Measurement unit: Local currency
- Industry value added linked to ecosystem services — Further description: Value added of industries with direct inputs of ecosystem services reflecting extent to which economic activities are dependent on ecosystem services — Spatial unit: EAA — Disaggregation: Ecosystem type — Measurement unit: Local currency
- Monetary ecosystem asset value — Further description: End-of-year monetary ecosystem asset value — Spatial unit: EAA — Disaggregation: Ecosystem type — Measurement unit: Local currency
- Cost of degradation — Further description: Reduction in monetary ecosystem asset value attributable to ecosystem degradation — Spatial unit: EAA — Disaggregation: Ecosystem type per capita for administrative areas, planning areas — Measurement unit: Local currency

### SEEA EA and global indicator monitoring frameworks
- SEEA enables countries to adopt a holistic and integrated approach to developing sets of indicators to support implementation, monitoring and reporting related to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
- At its fifty-first session, in March 2020, the Statistical Commission “welcomed the background document on interlinkages...and stressed the importance of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting for monitoring the [Sustainable Development] Goals”.
- At its fifty-second session, in March 2021, the Commission “welcomed the progress of the Committee [of Experts on Environmental-Economic Accounting] in mainstreaming the use of SEEA in policy, including climate change, circular economy, sustainable finance and biodiversity policy, and particularly encouraged the Committee to engage in the monitoring framework of the post-2020 global biodiversity agenda and participate in the proposed expert group under the auspices of the secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity to provide the connection between the biodiversity and official statistical communities”.
- SEEA provides two general advantages:
  - Broad coverage of environmental and economic topics, connections between stocks and flows, and use of physical and monetary data enable indicators to be placed in context and allow connections between indicators to be made evident.
  - SEEA enables countries to use a single, coherent database for reporting to multiple monitoring frameworks, with the potential to streamline data collection and organization and build more robust and consistent indicator derivations across reporting commitments.
- Monitoring frameworks continue to evolve; specific guidance on links between SEEA and individual monitoring frameworks is being developed progressively.

### SEEA support for specific global frameworks and conventions
- Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework:
  - The framework builds on the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and sets out goals for 2050 with associated outcomes for 2030 and 21 action-oriented targets for 2030.
  - SEEA can support measurement of ecosystems’ extent, condition and services and inform biodiversity policies in an integrated and holistic manner.
  - SEEA data (extent and condition accounts) can be used as inputs into derivation of habitat-based indicators of change in species-level biodiversity and can streamline reporting requirements.
  - Appendix A14.1 contains the 2050 goals and 2030 targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
- Sustainable Development Goals:
  - Resolution 70/1 of 25 September 2015 adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development with 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 associated targets.
  - SEEA, as the international statistical standard for describing the relationship between the environment and the economy, is well positioned to support integrated policies and understanding of interactions, trade-offs and co-benefits.
- Land degradation neutrality (LDN) and SDG indicator 15.3.1:
  - The three global LDN indicators (land cover, land productivity and carbon stocks) used to derive SDG indicator 15.3.1 can all be derived from existing core SEEA accounts:
    - SEEA land accounts (detailed spatial data on land cover)
    - SEEA ecosystem condition accounts (variables including soil organic carbon, annual net primary productivity and changes in above- and belowground carbon stores)
    - SEEA ecosystem services accounts (measure the global climate regulation services provided by an ecosystem)
  - The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification encourages countries to supplement monitoring with additional indicators for ecosystem services and social outcomes.
  - SEEA alignment with the SNA means SEEA-organized data can be integrated with existing economic accounts.
- IPBES:
  - IPBES provides policy-relevant knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services through assessment, development of policy support tools, capacity-building and knowledge development.
  - The SEEA EA framework captures many elements of the IPBES conceptual framework, enabling SEEA EA-based indicators to inform IPBES assessments.
- Ramsar Convention (Convention on Wetlands):
  - At its ninth meeting, held in Kampala from 8 to 15 November 2005, the Conference of the Parties adopted resolution IX.1 with an initial set of eight ecological outcome-oriented indicators for assessing Convention implementation (available during the 2006–2008 triennium).
  - The Fourth Strategic Plan of the Convention for the period 2016–2024 specifies a total of 19 targets across four strategic goals.
  - Indicator-related questions are posed to countries in section 3 of the national report template for the Ramsar Convention; a number of indicators have been identified as capable of being supported by SEEA-based accounts:
    - Change in the extent of wetland ecosystems
    - Trend in wetland condition
    - Number of households linked to sewage system
    - Percentage of sewerage coverage in the country
    - Number of wastewater treatment plants
- GEO BON:
  - Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON) is a global network to improve acquisition, coordination and delivery of biodiversity observations for decision-making.
  - GEO BON’s structured and interoperable national biodiversity observation networks are directly useful for SEEA EA implementation, particularly for production of natural capital accounts and related indicators.

### National indicator initiatives, applications and institutional considerations
- SEEA EA enables countries to adopt a holistic and integrated approach to developing sets of indicators to support reporting on national commitments, policies or strategies and allows effective targeting of policy efforts at national and subnational levels across terrestrial, freshwater and marine areas.
- The flexible modular approach allows compilation of SEEA EA indicators based on national priorities and data availability.
- National indicators that benefit most from SEEA EA foundation include those related to:
  - Contribution of ecosystems and their services to the economy, social well-being, jobs and livelihoods
  - Changes in the condition and health of ecosystems and biodiversity over time and the main locations of degradation and enhancement
  - Management of natural resources and ecosystems to ensure continued services and benefits such as energy, food supply, water supply, flood control, carbon storage and recreational opportunities
  - Progress in efforts towards targeted conservation
  - Expenditures and the development of economic instruments for conservation of nature
  - Estimation of a nation’s wealth, including natural capital and economic potential, once the state of nature is considered
  - Assessment of government performance on sustainable development
- Design and implementation of SEEA EA indicators to support national policy require strategic planning and establishment of appropriate institutional mechanisms and arrangements for ongoing compilation of accounts and subsequent calculation of indicators; the national statistical office (NSO) has a fundamental role in coordinating this process.

*Source: System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (excerpt).*

### 14.44  Of  particular  relevance  is  the  establishment  of  a  scalable  and  interoperable

### seeaeaea - 14.44  Of  particular  relevance  is  the  establishment  of  a  scalable  and  interoperable

### Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) and Essential Ecosystem Services Variables (EESVs)
- 14.44: EBVs cover six classes: "species populations, species traits, genetic composition, community composition, ecosystem structure and ecosystem function."
- EBVs optimize use of in situ and remote sensing data, predictive models and repeated measures at the same locations for trend detection and attribution of ecosystem change.
- A new framework for essential ecosystem services variables (EESVs) is being developed to measure change in material, non-material and cultural services provided by biodiversity and ecosystems.
- Interactions and dynamics within and across biodiversity, ecosystem functions and ecosystem services — involving ecological as well as socioecological feedbacks — can be assessed using relevant sets of EBVs and EESVs.

### Implementation, indicators, and interoperability
- 14.45: EBVs and EESVs are implemented through structured and repeatable workflows applicable at multiple scales that connect primary observation data to multiple biodiversity information products.
- Those workflows are being used to develop a new suite of time-series indicators for tracking status of and trends in key dimensions of biodiversity change and patterns.
- EBVs and their integrated outputs (e.g. indicators) are directly relevant to many indicators associated with the SEEA EA indicators initiative.
- Through the SEEA EA framework, EBVs and EESVs can provide underlying data products to inform policy frameworks including the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Sustainable Development Goals and multilateral environmental agreements.
- Continuous interactions and exchange between biodiversity data developers and statistics authorities from national to global levels are instrumental for generating demand-driven, science-based and timely SEEA EA indicators.
- Kim and others (forthcoming) provide a detailed assessment of potential connections between SEEA EA and GEO BON.

### Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), EOVs and ECVs
- 14.46: GOOS was established in 1991 by States members of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (UNESCO) and is co-sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization, UNEP and the International Science Council.
- Over the last decade, GOOS has been developing an integrated global observing system incorporating biology, ecosystems and ocean health.
- 14.47: GOOS develops and expands essential ocean variables (EOVs) and the marine essential climate variables (ECVs).
- Physical and biogeochemical EOVs measure physical and chemical condition of marine ecosystems and can support indicators on condition of marine and coastal ecosystems (following table 14.2).
- Biological EOVs measure extent and condition of marine ecosystems relevant to countries reporting to global environmental conventions.
- Both EOVs and ECVs can align to classifications under IUCN GET and support global carbon modelling, investments in blue carbon and selection of natural ecosystems for derivation of headline indicators for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
- EOVs and ECVs can serve as potential indicators on ecosystem extent and condition and ecosystem services flows for SEEA EA (tables 14.1, 14.2 and 14.3).
- GOOS works closely with the Marine Biodiversity Observation Network of GEO BON, as biological EOVs provide underlying data from which marine EBVs will be computed.

### Biodiversity Finance Initiative (BIOFIN) and expenditure harmonization
- 14.48: BIOFIN enables countries to measure current biodiversity expenditures, assess medium-term financial needs and identify finance solutions to bridge national biodiversity finance gaps.
- BIOFIN is currently active in 30 countries and has produced intermediate guidance on categorization of biodiversity expenditures based on nine categories.
- 14.49: Work is underway to harmonize the classification system for biodiversity expenditures among BIOFIN, the Environmental Expenditure Accounts of the SEEA Central Framework and the Sustainable Development Goal indicators related to expenditure on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems.

### Inclusive wealth and natural capital valuation
- 14.50: The inclusive wealth index measures wealth using countries’ natural, manufactured, human and social capital and can complement existing national accounts including GDP.
- The inclusive wealth index incorporates natural capital, human capital (e.g. education, wealth) and produced capital (e.g. equipment, machineries, roads), and recognizes changing factors such as carbon damage, oil capital gains and total factor productivity.
- Monetary value of ecosystem assets derived from the SEEA EA monetary ecosystem asset account can support measures of the natural capital component of inclusive wealth, reflecting that monetary values based on shadow prices may be appropriate depending on analytical context (see chap. 12).

### Biophysical modelling to support SEEA EA
- 14.51: Challenges in assembling ecosystem accounts include:
  - Data needed for accounts are not typically captured in standard statistical office sources (surveys, administrative data, censuses).
  - SEEA EA is spatially explicit, requiring mapping of ecosystems and ecosystem services; even regularly collected measures must be spatially explicit.
  - Reporting environmental data in ways that integrate into accounting frameworks without oversimplifying ecological and socioeconomic processes is difficult.
- SEEA EA merges ecology, economics and accounting by providing a spatially explicit accounting framework while avoiding double counting of economic contributions of ecosystem benefits.
- 14.52: Biophysical modelling can fill information gaps and spatially allocate non-spatial data.
- Diverse models and tools for estimating physical supply of ecosystem services have proliferated and are evolving, making compilation of ecosystem accounts by statistical agencies increasingly feasible.
- Many biophysical models produce results that can be used directly or modified for SEEA EA; identifying tools aligned with SEEA EA can facilitate faster adoption of ecosystem accounts.

### Scenario analysis and policy scenario analysis using SEEA EA
- 14.53–14.54: SEEA EA can be deployed for scenario analysis to support policymaking amid increasing interconnectedness of environment, societies and economies.
- Creation and quantification of scenarios with mathematical simulation models provide quantitative estimates under scenarios (e.g. implementing or not implementing a proposed policy) to inform policymaking.
- This exercise is known as policy scenario analysis, aimed at assessing outcomes and effectiveness of policy intervention options.
- A technical report on Policy Scenario Analysis Using SEEA Ecosystem Accounting (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division, and United Nations Environment Programme, 2021) and an IPBES report on scenario analysis (2016) provide further details.

### How SEEA EA supports modelling, knowledge generation and policy use
- 14.55: SEEA EA provides a standardized approach using consistent and coherent data, targeting policy relevance and local stakeholder involvement to support use of accounts and development of modelling approaches.
- SEEA EA can support:
  - Creation of new knowledge on ecosystems and how extent and quality provide services benefiting communities and human well-being, allowing incorporation of ecosystems in social and economic assessments.
  - Creation of coherent and harmonized accounts to enable development of new models that use such data frameworks.
  - Promotion of systemic approaches that assess (a) impact of human activity on ecosystems and (b) models determining how ecosystems influence human health and human activity.
  - Application of standard approaches to valuation of ecosystem services and ecosystem assets based on exchange values.
  - Improvement in sectoral model analysis by introducing physical indicators on ecosystem extent and condition and ecosystem services.
  - Generation of knowledge on interconnecting existing models to better represent relations between society, the economy and the environment.
  - Use of simulations extending SEEA analysis through forecasting or back-casting scenarios.
  - Explicitly accounting for site-specific drivers of change, system responses and impacts using spatially explicit analysis that determines value of ecosystem services based on location, enabling assessment of demand and supply.

### Combined presentations for ecosystem accounting (introduction and applications)
- 14.56–14.58: Combined presentations integrate physical and monetary data, a strong feature of SEEA, introduced in chapter VI of the SEEA Central Framework.
- In SEEA EA, combined presentations can show changes in stocks and flows of ecosystems in terms of standard measures of economic activity without necessarily valuing ecosystem services and assets in monetary terms.
- Flexibility exists in designing combined presentations; selection of variables should be guided by a specific analytical question or focus to contribute to a broader narrative.
- Indicator frameworks that may be relevant include DPSIR (European Environment Agency, 1999), the environmental sustainability gap framework and the natural capital indicator framework; SEEA does not advocate any specific indicator framework.

### Combining ecosystem data with environmental activities, economic dependence and policy instruments
- 14.59–14.61: Combining information on ecosystem services and assets with expenditure on environmental protection or resource management facilitates monitoring effects of expenditures on ecosystem changes (e.g., expenditure to restore coastal wetlands combined with changes in ecosystem condition and services).
- Environmental activities (per SEEA Central Framework) are economic activities with primary purpose of environmental protection or resource management.
- Information on actual expenditure to restore ecosystem assets can be complemented by flows of ecosystem services to reveal relationships between ecosystem condition and services and to analyze externalities, ecosystem disservices and policy response effectiveness.
- 14.62: Compilation of targeted statistics on production of ecosystem-related environmental goods and services using the environmental goods and services sector (EGSS) framework can provide information on share of overall value added contributed through goods and services related to ecosystems and biodiversity (the "biodiversity economy").

### Economic dependence on ecosystems and spatial allocation challenges
- 14.63–14.64: Interest exists in understanding the relationship between ecosystems and standard economic measures such as GDP (e.g., dependency of agricultural production on pollination).
- Dependency measures can focus on direct impacts (e.g., GDP "at risk" without a service) or include indirect supply chain effects using the extended SUT described in chapter 11.
- Even where contribution of ecosystem services as a percentage of GDP is low, economic dependency may still be very high.
- Allocating economic activity to subnational spatial areas involves conceptual difficulties; it may be useful to start with industries with clear ecosystem-location links (agriculture, forestry, fishing, tourism) and trace further connections via supply chains.

### Information on policy instruments and transactions linked to ecosystems
- 14.65: Where links between economic units and ecosystems are established, integrating data on transactions (environmental taxes, rent on natural resources, environmental subsidies, similar transfers) alongside economic indicators and ecosystem services/assets can provide a more complete picture.
- Comparing environmental expenditures and environmentally related revenues may be of interest from environmental management perspectives.

*Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/manuals-and-guides/2025/english/seeaeaea.pdf*

### 14.66 A number of indicators for the analysis of various topics can be described using

### 14.66 A number of indicators for the analysis of various topics can be described using

### DPSIR framework and SEEA EA linkage
- The DPSIR framework (European Environment Agency, 1999) describes a step-wise causal chain linking economic activity and impacts on nature.
- SEEA EA-derived indicators most improved are those characterized as state or impact indicators in the DPSIR framework.
- By integrating SEEA Central Framework statistics and other socioeconomic dimensions, SEEA EA supports derivation of a wide range of policy-relevant indicators that can be communicated using DPSIR.

### Driving forces indicators (D in DPSIR)
- Driving forces are anthropogenic activities that exert pressure on ecosystems; indicators describe social, demographic and economic developments and changes in consumption and production patterns.
- Primary driving forces: population growth and developments in the demand and consumption/production activities of economic agents.
- Examples (from table 14.5):
  - Population per hectare of ecosystem type — spatial unit: Ecosystem type — related SEEA accounts and statistics: Ecosystem extent account; population statistics disaggregated by ecosystem type — combined presentation: Combined presentation
  - Resource intensity in an EAA (i.e. ratio of natural resources such as water used to an economic variable such as output, income or value added) — spatial unit: EAA — related SEEA accounts and statistics: Ecosystem extent account; SEEA Central Framework physical flow accounts; economic statistics — combined presentation: Combined presentation

### Pressure indicators (P in DPSIR)
- Pressures are direct stresses to ecosystems arising from anthropogenic activities such as emissions to air, water and waste and the release of excessive nutrients.
- Examples (from table 14.6):
  - Hazardous waste generated per industry sector — spatial unit: Ecosystem type — related SEEA accounts and statistics: Ecosystem extent account; SEEA solid waste accounts — combined presentation: Combined presentation
  - GHG emission per industry sector — spatial unit: Ecosystem type — related SEEA accounts and statistics: Ecosystem extent account; SEEA CF air emission account — combined presentation: Combined presentation
  - Water emission (biological oxygen demand/chemical oxygen demand, phosphorus, nitrogen, etc.) per industry sector — spatial unit: Ecosystem type — related SEEA accounts and statistics: Ecosystem extent account; SEEA CF water emission account

### State indicators (S in DPSIR)
- State indicators describe the quantity and quality of physical, biological or chemical phenomena in a certain area.
- In SEEA EA context they refer to the state of ecosystems in terms of extent, condition and capacity to provide services to humanity and conditions in the environment.
- Indicators derived from the ecosystem extent and condition accounts of SEEA EA are considered state indicators.

### Impact indicators (I in DPSIR)
- Impact indicators measure changes in the state of the environment due to natural changes, pressures or human intervention and their effects on social and economic functions.
- SEEA EA impact indicators include measures of changes in ecosystems and human systems derived from physical and monetary ecosystem services flow accounts and the monetary ecosystem asset account.
- Examples (from table 14.7):
  - Integrated and extended accounting: NDP adjusted for cost of degradation — spatial unit: EAA — related SEEA accounts: Extended sequence of accounts — combined presentation: Combined presentation
  - Area of ecosystem that has seen an increase in condition — spatial unit: Ecosystem type — related SEEA accounts: Ecosystem extent account; ecosystem condition account — combined presentation: Combined presentation
  - GEP per hectare of ecosystem type — spatial unit: Ecosystem type — related SEEA accounts: Ecosystem extent account; monetary ecosystem services flow account — combined presentation: Combined presentation
  - Ratio of ecosystem asset value to service value — spatial unit: Ecosystem type — related SEEA accounts: Monetary ecosystem services flow account; monetary ecosystem asset account
  - Economic dependence on ecosystem: Economic activity dependent on nature (e.g. value of ecosystem services linked to industry value added) — spatial unit: EAA — related SEEA accounts: Monetary ecosystem services flow accounts; SNA; industrial statistics
  - Environmentally extended multi-regional input-output analysis: Ecosystem footprints (e.g. flows of carbon, water or ecosystem services embodied in a country’s imports and exports of goods and services) — spatial unit: EAA — related SEEA accounts: Monetary ecosystem services flow accounts; Input-output analysis
- Other impact indicator types:
  - Indicators derived from integrated and extended accounting (chap. 11 of SEEA EA)
  - Indicators derived from the combination of physical and monetary accounts
  - Indicators measuring economic dependence on ecosystems
  - Indicators derived from analytical models using SEEA data for consumption and production pattern analysis (e.g. footprint-type indicators)

### Response indicators (R in DPSIR)
- Responses are management actions to prevent, compensate for, ameliorate or adapt to changes in the state of the environment.
- Types of potential SEEA-based response indicators:
  - Environmental activities and EGSS
  - Tax and expenditure (environmental protection and resource management expenditures and environmental taxes)
  - Policy instruments designed to safeguard ecosystem condition
- Examples (from table 14.8):
  - Environmental activities: Value added and employment generation by the EGSS per ecosystem type — spatial unit: Ecosystem type — related SEEA accounts and statistics: EGSS; SNA; economic statistics
  - Tax and expenditure: Return on biodiversity expenditure (change in ecosystem condition index per dollar spent) — spatial unit: EAA — related SEEA accounts: Ecosystem condition account; environmental protection and expenditure account
  - Tax and expenditure: Biodiversity-related environmental tax — spatial unit: EAA — related SEEA accounts: Accounting for environmental taxes
  - Policy instrument: Integration of biodiversity into national accounting and reporting systems, defined as implementation of SEEA

### SEEA EA and the post-2020 global biodiversity framework (Appendix A14.1)
- The official statistical community’s role and SEEA’s value in monitoring the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and mainstreaming biodiversity in national statistical systems are recognized.
- A proposed monitoring framework is composed of three groups of indicators:
  - Group 1: headline indicators — a minimum set of high-level indicators for tracking national, regional and global progress
  - Group 2: component indicators — indicators for monitoring each component of each goal and target at national, regional and global levels
  - Group 3: complementary indicators — thematic or in-depth indicators less relevant for most countries or with methodological/data gaps
- SEEA is recognized as the methodological basis for headline indicators on at least six goals and targets in the monitoring framework (goals A and B; and targets 9, 11, 14 and 19).
- Selected proposed headline indicators derivable from SEEA accounts (listed directly):
  - Extent of selected natural and modified ecosystem (i.e. forest, savannas and grasslands, wetlands, mangroves, salt marshes, coral reefs, seagrass, macroalgae and intertidal habitats)
  - National environmental-economic accounts of ecosystem services
  - National GHG inventories from land use and land-use change
  - National environmental-economic accounts of benefits from use of wild species
  - National environmental-economic accounts of regulation of air quality, quality and quantity of water, and protection from hazards and extreme events for all people, from ecosystems
  - Average share of the built-up area of cities that is green/blue space for public use for all
  - Integration of biodiversity into national accounting and reporting systems, defined as implementation of SEEA
  - Material footprint per capita
  - Public expenditure and private expenditure on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems

### SEEA connections to 2050 goals and 2030 targets (selected)
- 2050 goals that can be informed by SEEA accounts (table A14.1.1):
  - Goal A: integrity, connectivity and resilience of ecosystems; human induced extinction halted; genetic diversity maintained — informed by ecosystem extent accounts, ecosystem condition accounts and species accounts of SEEA EA
  - Goal B: biodiversity sustainably used and nature’s contributions to people valued and maintained — informed by physical and monetary ecosystem services flow accounts of SEEA EA
  - Goal D: means of implementation secured and biodiversity finance gap of $700 billion per year progressively closed — informed by environmental protection expenditure accounts of the SEEA Central Framework
- 2030 targets and related SEEA accounts (table A14.1.2) — selected examples:
  - Target 2 (by 2030 at least 30 per cent of areas of degraded terrestrial, inland water, and marine and coastal ecosystems are under effective restoration): informed by combination of ecosystem extent accounts and ecosystem condition accounts of SEEA EA
  - Target 3 (by 2030 at least 30 per cent of terrestrial and inland water areas, and of marine and coastal areas, are effectively conserved and managed): informed by protected area accounts based on SEEA EA
  - Target 4 (urgent management actions to halt human induced extinction and recover species): informed by species accounts of SEEA EA; indicators measuring status and trend of species can be integrated into ecosystem condition accounts
  - Target 5 (sustainable, safe and legal use, harvesting and trade of wild species): informed by physical ecosystem services flow account of SEEA EA

*Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/manuals-and-guides/2025/english/seeaeaea.pdf*

### 6. Eliminate, minimize, reduce and or mitigate the impacts of invasive

### 6. Eliminate, minimize, reduce and or mitigate the impacts of invasive

### Targets 6–12: objectives and SEEA links
- Target 6: Eliminate, minimize, reduce and/or mitigate the impacts of invasive alien species by:
  - identifying and managing pathways of the introduction of alien species;
  - preventing the introduction and establishment of priority invasive alien species;
  - reducing the rates of introduction and establishment of other known or potential invasive alien species by at least 50 per cent by 2030;
  - eradicating or controlling invasive alien species, especially in priority sites, such as islands.
- Integration note: Target 6 can be integrated into the ecosystem condition accounts of SEEA EA to derive broader measures of sustainability.

- Target 7: Reduce pollution risks and negative impacts of pollution from all sources by 2030 to levels not harmful to biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, considering cumulative effects, including:
  - (a) reducing excess nutrients lost to the environment by at least half, including through more efficient nutrient cycling and use;
  - (b) reducing the overall risk from pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals by at least half, including through integrated pest management, based on science, taking into account food security and livelihoods;
  - (c) preventing, reducing, and working towards eliminating plastic pollution.
- Integration note: Target 7 can be informed by indicators deriving from a combination of ecosystem condition accounts of SEEA EA and residual flow accounts of the SEEA Central Framework.

- Target 8: Minimize the impact of climate change and ocean acidification on biodiversity and increase resilience through mitigation, adaptation, and disaster risk reduction, including nature-based solutions and/or ecosystem-based approaches, while minimizing negative and fostering positive impacts of climate action on biodiversity.
- Integration note: Target 8 can be informed by indicators from physical ecosystem services flow accounts of SEEA EA.

- Target 9: Ensure sustainable management and use of wild species to provide social, economic and environmental benefits, especially for vulnerable people and those most dependent on biodiversity, including through sustainable biodiversity-based activities and protecting customary sustainable use by indigenous peoples and local communities.
- Integration note: Target 9 can be informed by indicators from a combination of physical and monetary ecosystem services flow accounts for SEEA EA and socioeconomic statistics.

- Target 10: Ensure areas under agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry are managed sustainably, including substantial increase in biodiversity-friendly practices (sustainable intensification, agroecological and other innovative approaches) to contribute to resilience, long-term efficiency and productivity, food security, biodiversity conservation and restoration, and maintenance of nature’s contributions to people.
- Integration note: Target 10 can be informed by indicators from a combination of ecosystem condition and physical and monetary ecosystem services flow accounts for cultivated/managed ecosystems of SEEA EA.

- Target 11: Restore, maintain and enhance nature’s contributions to people (ecosystem functions and services such as air, water and climate regulation, soil health, pollination, disease risk reduction, protection from natural hazards) through nature-based solutions and/or ecosystem-based approaches.
- Integration note: Target 11 can be informed by indicators from physical ecosystem services flow accounts of SEEA EA.

- Target 12: Significantly increase the area and quality, connectivity of, access to, and benefits from green and blue spaces in urban and densely populated areas sustainably, mainstreaming conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ensuring biodiversity-inclusive urban planning to enhance native biodiversity, ecological connectivity and integrity, improve human health and well-being and connection to nature, and contribute to inclusive and sustainable urbanization and ecosystem functions and services.
- Integration note: Target 12 can be informed by a combination of urban accounts, ecosystem condition accounts and physical ecosystem services flow accounts of SEEA EA.

### Targets 14, 16 and 19: integration, consumption footprint, and finance
- Target 14: Ensure full integration of biodiversity and its multiple values into policies, regulations, planning and development processes, poverty eradication strategies, strategic environmental assessments, environmental impact assessments and, as appropriate, national accounting, within and across all levels of government and across all sectors, progressively aligning public and private activities, and fiscal and financial flows with the goals and targets of the framework.
  - Integration note: Target 14 can be informed by the global assessment of SEEA that measures the integration of biodiversity into national accounting and reporting systems, defined as implementation of SEEA.

- Target 16: Encourage and enable sustainable consumption choices, including supportive policy frameworks, improved education and access to accurate information and alternatives, and by 2030 reduce the global footprint of consumption in an equitable manner, including through halving global food waste, significantly reducing overconsumption and substantially reducing waste generation.
  - Integration note: Target 16 can be informed by footprint indicators deriving from environmentally extended input-output analysis using indicators from SEEA as the input data.

- Target 19: Substantially and progressively increase financial resources from all sources to implement national biodiversity strategies and action plans, mobilizing at least $200 billion per year by 2030, including by:
  - (a) Increasing total biodiversity related international financial resources from developed countries to at least $20 billion per year by 2025, and to at least $30 billion per year by 2030;
  - (b) Significantly increasing domestic resource mobilization via national biodiversity finance plans or similar instruments;
  - (c) Leveraging private finance, promoting blended finance, implementing strategies for raising new and additional resources, and encouraging private sector investment in biodiversity, including through impact funds and other instruments;
  - (d) Stimulating innovative schemes such as payment for ecosystem services, green bonds, biodiversity offsets and credits, and benefit-sharing mechanisms, with environmental and social safeguards;
  - (e) Optimizing co-benefits and synergies of finance targeting biodiversity and climate crises;
  - (f) Enhancing collective actions, including by indigenous peoples and local communities, Mother Earth centric actions and non-market-based approaches including community based natural resource management and civil society cooperation and solidarity;
  - (g) Enhancing the effectiveness, efficiency and transparency of resource provision and use.
- Integration note: Target 19 can be informed by indicators from the environmental protection expenditure accounts of the SEEA Central Framework.

### Annex I — SEEALand stylized example: background and purpose
- Purpose: Support understanding and interpretation of SEEA EA concepts via a limited stylized example demonstrating accounting for a set of ecosystem types and ecosystem services.
- Complementary material: An online spreadsheet accompanies this publication on the SEEA website to demonstrate accounting relationships and calculations.
- Data assumptions:
  - Opening of the accounting period: 1 January 2020.
  - Closing of the accounting period: 31 December 2020.
  - The example assumes account-ready data are available; no direct connection to specific data sources is claimed.
- Exclusions: The example does not include thematic accounts (e.g., carbon, water, or species) though such accounts may be developed later in the online spreadsheet.

### SEEALand general context and ecological changes
- Six ecosystem types classified per IUCN GET biomes and ecosystem functional groups (EFGs).
- Major changes and pressures in SEEALand over the accounting period:
  - Managed conversions from forest to cropland and general intensification of ecosystem use, negatively impacting forest and wetland condition (edge effects).
  - Mixed outcomes from policies to improve cropland condition.
  - Urban intensification driving loss of urban green spaces.
  - Long-term efforts improved lake water quality, resulting in improved lake condition.
  - Sewerage overflow from urban area negatively influenced seagrass bed condition.
- Expected impacts:
  - Changes in condition affect future expected flows of ecosystem services and recorded measures of ecosystem degradation, ecosystem enhancement and reappraisals.
  - Expected changes in future prices for some ecosystem services:
    - For wood and wild fish provisioning services: price increases driven by increased demand and increased regulation reducing supply.
    - Price of global climate regulation services expected to increase, reflecting increases in the marginal damages incurred through carbon release.

### Ecosystem extent: opening and closing (SEEALand)
- Total area of SEEALand: 250 hectares (each grid cell represents 10 hectares).
- Opening extent (1 January 2020): six distinct ecosystem assets.
- Change over accounting period:
  - Replacement of 2 hectares of forest by 2 hectares of cropland (managed expansion of cropland and managed reduction in forest).

- Ecosystem extent account, 2020 (hectares):
  - Opening extent: Total 250; Forest 40; Lake 30; Cropland 60; Urban area 50; Wetland 20; Seagrass 50.
  - Additions to extent:
    - Managed expansions: 2
    - Unmanaged expansions: (no entries)
  - Reductions to extent:
    - Managed reductions: 2
    - Unmanaged reductions: (no entries)
  - Net change in extent: -2 0 +2 0 0 0 (as presented in the table)
  - Closing extent: Total 250; Forest 38; Lake 30; Cropland 62; Urban area 50; Wetland 20; Seagrass 50.

- Ecosystem type change matrix, 2020 (hectares):
  - Opening extent (rows) and closing ecosystem types (columns) show:
    - Forest opening: 38 unchanged; 2 converted to Cropland.
    - Lake opening: 30 unchanged.
    - Cropland opening: 60 unchanged.
    - Urban areas opening: 50 unchanged.
    - Wetland opening: 20 unchanged.
    - Seagrass opening: 50 unchanged.
  - Closing extent (column totals): Forest 38; Lake 30; Cropland 62; Urban areas 50; Wetland 20; Seagrass 50.

### Ecosystem condition: approach and variables
- Condition measured using the ecosystem condition typology (ECT) to structure characteristics and variables (abiotic, biotic, landscape/seascape).
- Forest example variables:
  - Abiotic variables: vegetation water content; soil organic carbon stock; foliar nitrogen concentration.
  - Biotic variables: trees species richness; tree cover; normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI).
  - Landscape characteristic: forest area density.
- Purpose: These variables collectively assess forest ecosystem integrity, link to biodiversity information and to ecosystem capacity to supply services.

*Source: seeaeaea - 6. Eliminate, minimize, reduce and or mitigate the impacts of invasive (PDF chapter).*

### Annex I: SEEALand – a stylized example of ecosystem accounting

### Annex I: SEEALand – a stylized example of ecosystem accounting

### Structure and approach to ecosystem condition accounting
- Condition accounts follow the SEEA ECT structure and the selection criteria described in appendix A5.1.
- Three linked accounts are presented for each ecosystem type:
  - Ecosystem condition variable account (observed variable values at opening and closing; change recorded).
  - Ecosystem condition indicator account (variable values, reference-level lower and upper values, rescaled indicator values; change recorded).
  - Ecosystem condition indices account (indicator values weighted to derive subindices and total index; change recorded).
- Normalization of variables to indicator values is based on agreed reference conditions (see appendix A5.2). In this example:
  - Forest, lake, wetland and seagrass are assessed against natural reference conditions.
  - Cropland and urban area are assessed against anthropogenic reference conditions.
- Index derivation in the example uses equal weighting of each ECT class; where six ECT classes are measured, weight for each class is 0.17. Where more than one variable exists in a class, variables are equally weighted within that class.
- Alternative presentation: the three condition accounts can be combined into a single table in the complementary spreadsheet.

### Forest — condition variable account (selected entries from table AI.4a, 2020)
- SEEA ECT class — Variable descriptor — Measurement unit — Variable values (Opening / Closing / Change)
  - Abiotic characteristics — Physical state — Vegetation water content (NDWI) — Index (-1 to 1) — 0.31 / 0.29 / -0.02
  - Abiotic characteristics — Chemical state — Soil organic carbon stock — tC/ha — 100 / 95 / -5
  - Abiotic characteristics — Chemical state — Foliar or litter nitrogen concentration — mg N/g dry weight — 18 / 17 / -1
  - Biotic characteristics — Compositional state — Tree species richness — Number — 65 / - / -1
  - Biotic characteristics — Structural state — Tree cover — % — 81 / 75 / -6
  - Biotic characteristics — Functional state — Vegetation index (NDVI) — Index (-1 to 1) — 0.65 / 0.63 / -0.02
  - Landscape/seascape characteristics — Forest area density — % — 74 / 59 / -15
- Abbreviations preserved as in source: NDWI, NDVI, tC/ha, N, mg, g.

### Forest — condition indicator and index accounts (selected entries from tables AI.4b and AI.4c, 2020)
- Indicator values (rescaled) and reference-levels (selected entries):
  - Vegetation water content (NDWI): Variable 0.31 / 0.29; Lower level  -1; Upper level 1; Indicator opening 0.66 / closing 0.65 / change -0.01
  - Soil organic carbon stock: Variable 100 / 95; Lower level 0; Upper level 2500; Indicator opening 0.40 / closing 0.38 / change -0.02
  - Foliar or litter nitrogen concentration: Variable 18 / 17; Lower level 4; Upper level 40; Indicator opening 0.39 / closing 0.36 / change -0.03
  - Tree species richness: Variable 65 / - ; Lower level 0; Upper level 100; Indicator opening 0.60 / closing 0.50 / change -0.10
  - Tree cover: Variable 81 / 75; Lower level 0; Upper level 100; Indicator opening 0.81 / closing 0.75 / change -0.06
  - Vegetation index (NDVI): Variable 0.65 / 0.63; Lower level -1; Upper level 1; Indicator opening 0.83 / closing 0.82 / change -0.01
  - Forest area density: Variable 74 / 59; Lower level 0; Upper level 100; Indicator opening 0.74 / closing 0.59 / change -0.15
- Index weights and derived index values (selected entries):
  - Indicator weight per ECT class used: 0.17.
  - Total abiotic — Opening 0.33 / Closing 0.17 / Change -0.01
  - Total biotic — Opening 0.50 / Closing 0.37 / Change -0.03
  - Total landscape/seascape — Opening 0.12 / Closing 0.10 / Change -0.03
  - Total index — Opening 1.00 / Closing 0.67 / Change -0.06
- Note preserved: "Changes in index values are derived as the difference between opening and closing index values. Owing to rounding, the results may differ from those obtained through weighting the change in indicator values."

### Cross-ecosystem condition summary (selected entries from table AI.5)
- Opening condition value by ecosystem type:
  - Forest 0.67
  - Lake 0.63
  - Cropland 0.47
  - Urban area 0.50
  - Wetland 0.59
  - Seagrass 0.45
- Net change in condition (total) during accounting period:
  - Forest -0.06
  - Lake 0.05
  - Cropland 0.00
  - Urban area -0.02
  - Wetland -0.04
  - Seagrass -0.08
- Closing condition value by ecosystem type:
  - Forest 0.61
  - Lake 0.67
  - Cropland 0.47
  - Urban area 0.49
  - Wetland 0.56
  - Seagrass 0.37
- Narrative summary of drivers of change (as in source):
  - Forest: substantial historical clearing and a further small conversion in the accounting period → large decrease in forest area density and decline in tree cover; other variables smaller changes.
  - Lake: long-term nutrient management action plan → further improvement starting from already good quality.
  - Wetland: sewerage overflow from urban wastewater treatment plants and intensive land use → continuing water quality impacts.
  - Cropland: slow degradation through intensive use; policy aimed at increasing organic farming practices.
  - Urban ecosystem: slight condition decline related to loss of urban green area.
  - Seagrass: pressure from sewerage overflow from urban area and associated organic pollution.

### Ecosystem services — physical flows (selected entries from table AI.6 and AI.7, 2020)
- Key physical supply of final ecosystem services (supply table, selected rows):
  - Crop provisioning — Tons — 150
  - Wood provisioning services — m3 — 14 0
  - Wild fish and other natural aquatic biomass provisioning services — Tons — 3 / 6 / 9 (industry totals shown)
  - Global climate regulation services — Tons CO2 — 150 / 5 / 20 / 250 / 425 (total supply by resident economic units 425)
  - Water purification services — Tons N removed — 7
  - Recreation-related services — Number of visits — 1 500 / 5 000 / 2 500 / 800 / 9 800 (total supply by resident ecosystem assets 9 800)
- Key physical use of final ecosystem services (use table, selected rows):
  - Crop provisioning — Tons — 150 (total use by resident economic units 150)
  - Wood provisioning services — m3 — 14 0 (total use by resident economic units 14 0)
  - Wild fish provisioning — Tons — 9 (total use by resident economic units 9)
  - Global climate regulation services — Tons CO2 — 425 (total use by resident economic units 425)
  - Water purification services — Tons N removed — 7 (total use by resident economic units 7)
  - Recreation-related services — Number of visits — 9 800 (total use by resident economic units 9 800)

### Ecosystem services — monetary valuation and supply/use tables (selected entries and methods)
- Prices assumed for valuation (used to derive monetary supply and use entries):
  - Wood provisioning 60 currency units/m3
  - Crop provisioning 75 currency units/ton
  - Wild fish biomass provisioning 350 currency units/ton
  - Global climate regulation 25 currency units/ton of CO2
  - Water purification 100 currency units/ton of nitrogen removed
  - Recreation-related 5 currency units/visit
- Aggregation and monetary SUTs:
  - Ecosystem services flows in monetary terms = physical flow × relevant price (exchange values).
  - Gross ecosystem product (GEP) = sum of values of all final ecosystem services less net imports of intermediate services. In this example, there are no intermediate services; therefore:
    - GEP = 83,125 currency units.
- Selected monetary supply/use table totals (currency units, thousands; as presented):
  - TOTAL SUPPLY (monetary, table AI.8 summary): 83.125 (as presented)
  - TOTAL USE (monetary, table AI.9 summary): 83.125 (as presented)
- Valuation methods noted (as described in source):
  - Wood, crop and wild fish provisioning: directly observed values or residual value/resource rent methods.
  - Global climate regulation: carbon trading schemes or social cost of carbon data.
  - Water purification: replacement cost techniques.
  - Recreation-related: travel cost methods.
  - These techniques are described in chapter 9.

### Monetary ecosystem asset accounting — expected flows, NPV example for forest (table AI.10, 2020)
- Principles for expected flows:
  - Expected flows at opening estimated from knowledge available at opening concerning past flows, current condition, and likely future changes.
  - Expected flows at closing consider actual flows during the period and condition changes affecting capacity to supply services.
- Example: Forest expected physical flows and expected prices (Opening value 1 January 2020 / Closing value 31 December 2020)
  - Expected physical flows:
    - Wood provisioning (m3) — 150 / 120
    - Global climate regulation (tons CO2) — 160 / 125
    - Recreation-related (number of visits) — 1 600 / 1 450
  - Expected prices:
    - Wood provisioning — 60 / 65
    - Global climate regulation — 25 / 26
    - Recreation-related — 5 / 5
  - Expected exchange values (Opening / Closing):
    - Wood provisioning — 9 000 / 7 800
    - Global climate regulation — 4 000 / 3 250
    - Recreation-related — 8 000 / 7 250
    - Total — 21 000 / 18 300
  - NPV calculations (currency units):
    - NPV Wood provisioning — 387 885 / 336 167
    - NPV Global climate regulation — 172 393 / 140 070
    - NPV Recreation-related — 344 787 / 312 463
    - Total NPV — 905 065 / 788 700
    - Change in NPV — -116   3 6 6
- Assumptions used in NPV derivation:
  - Asset life of 100 years.
  - Constant flow of ecosystem services and constant price over asset life (with some changes incorporated between opening and closing).
  - No further ecosystem conversions to the closing extent on 31 December 2020.
  - Discount rate of 2 per cent in real terms for all ecosystem services.
  - Income earned at the end of the accounting period.
- Notes:
  - Monetary ecosystem asset account entries follow principles in chapter 10 and decomposition steps in appendix A10.1.
  - Monetary values in the monetary ecosystem asset account exclude a range of values (e.g., intrinsic values) that are not quantified in monetary terms.

### Treatment of conversions and extent changes
- When conversions occur (example: one conversion from forest to cropland during accounting period):
  - Condition measurement at opening and closing relates to the area of the ecosystem at those times; closing condition for forest relates to a smaller area than opening; the opposite for cropland.
  - For relatively large-scale accounting and small conversions (< 5 per cent of total area), include characteristics sensitive to extent (e.g., tree cover, share of lake shoreline covered by natural vegetation) to accommodate comparability.
  - For significant conversions or small-area accounting, distinguish condition of unconverted area from converted area where data permit (e.g., pixel-level mapping).

*Source: Annex I: SEEALand – a stylized example of ecosystem accounting (tables and text as presented in the source content).*

### Annex I: SEEALand – a stylized example of ecosystem accounting

### Annex I: SEEALand – a stylized example of ecosystem accounting

### Key findings
- The asset value of lake is the highest among the six ecosystem types.
- Ecosystem degradation has been recorded for forest, wetland and seagrass, reflecting their decline in condition and the associated decline in expected ecosystem services flows.
- Ecosystem conversion from forest to cropland has a net negative effect on asset values.
- Revaluations reflecting changes in expected prices for ecosystem services can be seen to affect all ecosystem types (except cropland, where prices for the only ecosystem service, that is, crop provisioning, did not change).

### Monetary ecosystem asset account, 2020 (currency units) — Table AI.11 (selected rows)
- Ecosystem types (columns): Forest | Lake | Crop‑land | Urban area | Wet‑land | Sea‑grass | TOTAL
- Opening value: 905 065 | 1 078 321 | 484 856 | 522 568 | 51 718 | 529 679 | 3 572 207
- Ecosystem enhancement: 0 | 15 30 0000 | 0 | 15 30 | 0
- Ecosystem degradation: -10 8   111000 | -1 099-163 9 4 6 | -273 156
- Ecosystem conversions:
  - Additions: 0 | 0 | 16 94 4000 | 0 | 16 94 4
  - Reductions: -43 43500000 | -43 435
- Other changes in volume of ecosystem assets:
  - Catastrophic losses: 0
- Upward reappraisals: 0 0 47 704 | 43 098 | 0 0 90 802
- Downward reappraisals: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- Revaluations: 35 180 | 47 624 | 0 21 5840 | 160 929 | 244 789
- Net change in value: -116   3 6 662 92464 64843 314-259-3 01751 24 4
- Closing value: 788 700 | 1 141 244 | 549 504 | 565 881 | 51 459 | 526 662 | 3 623 451

### Research and development agenda — overview
- SEEA EA provides a consistent accounting framework for delineating and measuring ecosystems; data compiled using SEEA EA are inputs for policy evaluation and environmental‑economic analysis.
- The SEEA EA research agenda must evolve with changing environmental and economic contexts, developments in understanding environment–economy links, and implementation experience.
- Review and updating of SEEA EA will follow established international standards review processes, involving consideration of: (a) relative importance of updates; (b) consequences and implementation impacts of changes; and (c) extent of completed research on proposed changes.
- Updates require coordinated, integrated consideration because SEEA EA is an integrated accounting system with links to other statistical areas (e.g., geospatial statistics) and to the SNA.

### Topics concerning conceptual issues
- Description and measurement of ecosystem capacity
  - SEEA EA defines ecosystem capacity in terms of the ability of ecosystem assets to supply individual ecosystem services without reducing ecosystem condition.
  - Further research should consider systemic approaches linking ecosystem capacity and ecosystem condition; implications for measurement of degradation, enhancement and other value changes; and potential to improve discussion of ecosystem resilience, maintenance of ecosystem function and measurement of ecological thresholds and limits.
- Classification of ecosystem services
  - SEEA EA provides a reference list including 33 main ecosystem services with agreed labels and descriptions.
  - The reference list was developed in collaboration with classifications including CICES, NESCS Plus, TEEB and the IPBES “nature’s contribution to people” approach.
  - Correspondences between the reference list and other classifications are available in an online annex to SEEA EA to support advancement toward an internationally agreed statistical classification.
- Treatment of the atmosphere
  - SEEA EA and the SEEA Central Framework exclude the atmosphere from environmental assets; recognition of the atmosphere’s significance (air quality, sink for GHG emissions) warrants further work.
  - Research should consider partitioning the atmosphere into spatial units, assessing atmospheric condition, identifying possible atmosphere‑provided ecosystem services, and appropriate recording of transactions related to the atmosphere (for example, transactions associated with reducing GHG emissions).
  - Research must be linked to SEEA Central Framework and SNA work.
- Connections to complementary valuations of ecosystem services and ecosystem assets
  - SEEA EA applies an exchange value valuation concept; environmental valuation often uses alternative economic valuation concepts.
  - Further discussion is needed to refine and communicate connections between exchange value‑based estimates and other valuation approaches, focusing on appropriate application and interpretation across decision contexts.
  - Consideration may include consumer surplus and welfare changes, ecosystem disservices and negative externalities, non‑use values, wealth accounting based on shadow prices, and restoration cost‑based approaches to measuring ecosystem degradation. Work should be undertaken in consultation with SNA experts.
- Ongoing alignment with the SNA
  - Alignment enables comparison between ecosystem accounts and SNA measures of income and wealth.
  - Emerging asset boundary issues for joint consideration include treatment of stranded assets such as fossil fuel reserves; valuation of water resources; valuation of renewable resources; treatment of payments for ecosystem services and transactions in environmental markets; and recognition of liabilities for environmental damage.
  - Engagement with national accounts experts is recommended on treatment of public goods, collective consumption and social transfers in kind; the 2008 SNA update provides an opportunity to address these issues.

### Topics concerning methods and implementation
- Further adapting measurement techniques to support implementation
  - Many components must be measured across the ecosystem accounting framework; established measurement approaches exist for delineation, condition, and service flows, but adapting them to ecosystem accounting requires further testing and development.
  - Work should build on technical guidance on ecosystem accounting.
  - Specific areas of focus for testing and development in physical accounting include:
    - Delineation of ecosystem assets, especially for measurement of change over time and identification of ecosystem conversions.
    - Relevant guidance referenced includes Guidelines on Biophysical Modelling for Ecosystem Accounting (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division, 2022a) and Monetary Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Assets for Ecosystem Accounting. Interim report (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division, 2022b).

*Source: Annex I: SEEALand – a stylized example of ecosystem accounting (seeaeaea - Annex I: SEEALand – a stylized example of ecosystem accounting).*

### Annex II: Research and development agenda

### Annex II: Research and development agenda

### Selection of ecosystem condition variables and reference levels
- Selection of a minimum set of ecosystem condition variables and determination of reference levels and conditions for different ecosystem types along a gradient from natural to anthropogenic
- Articulation of relationships between ecosystem condition variables, ecosystem characteristics and processes and ecosystem services
- Spatial modelling of ecosystem services, especially with respect to use of ecosystem services and relative to ecosystem capacity
- Methods to account for specific ecosystem types, for example, oceans, urban areas and wetlands

### Monetary accounting: testing and development priorities
- Collection of data on ecosystem services by ecosystem type and taking into account the location of users and variations in institutional arrangements
- Application of value transfer techniques for accounting purposes, in particular in the context of alignment with exchange value concepts, consistency with data collected in physical terms on extent, condition and services flows and advancement of the potential of value generalization techniques
- Approach to the measurement of future flows and prices of ecosystem services as input to the calculation of NPVs for ecosystem assets
- Interpretation of data from ecosystem accounts in monetary terms

### Data standards and availability
- Establishment of a platform for the development of shared data tools, frameworks for assessing data quality and expectations on quality as part of implementation
- Principles and practices for the development of infrastructure for spatial data to support ecosystem accounting
- Determination of a minimum set (tier 1) of account-ready data
- Principles and practices for accessing and sharing data, including tools to support the interoperability of data and systems
- Bridge tables and crosswalks from SEEA EA reference classifications and lists for ecosystem types and ecosystem services to other, related classifications, lists and typologies
- Development of spatial sampling methods and strategies
- Articulation of data quality assessment frameworks, tools and processes, especially concerning spatial data

### Applications and indicators
- Development of guidance for SEEA-based thematic accounts for biodiversity, climate change, oceans and urban areas
- Design of global accounts that incorporate data within and beyond national jurisdictions, for example, concerning oceans and the atmosphere
- Description of aggregates and indicators based on SEEA EA and related data to support environmental monitoring and reporting, including:
  - development of aggregate indices of ecosystem condition
  - indicators linking ecosystem accounting data to data on economic production, employment and restoration expenditure
  - indicators designed to support global environmental conventions including the Convention on Biological Diversity; the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa; and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

*Annex II: Research and development agenda — seeaeaea - Annex II: Research and development agenda*

### References

### References

### Foundational textbooks and conceptual frameworks
- Ågren, Gran I., and Folke O. Andersson (2012). Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology: Principles and Applications. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
- Bailey, Robert G. (1996). Ecosystem Geography. New York: Springer-Verlag.
- Bailey, Robert G. (2009). Ecosystem Geography: From Ecoregions to Sites, 2nd ed. New York: Springer.
- Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 1–23.
- Keddy, Paul A. (2010). Wetland Ecology: Principles and Conservation, 2nd ed. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
- Hartwick, John M., and Nancy D. Olewiler (1998). The Economics of Natural Resource Use, 2nd ed. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.

### Ecosystem accounting, natural capital, and wealth measurement
- Arrow, Kenneth, and others (2012). Sustainability and the measurement of wealth. Environment and Development Economics, vol. 17, No. 3 (June), pp. 317–353.
- Barbier, Edward B. (2013). Wealth accounting, ecological capital and ecosystem services. Environment and Development Economics, vol. 18, No. 2 (April), pp. 133–161.
- Edens, Bram, and Lars Hein (2013). Towards a consistent approach for ecosystem accounting. Ecological Economics, vol. 90 (June), pp. 41–52.
- Hein, Lars, and others (2016). Defining ecosystem assets for natural capital accounting. PLoS ONE, vol. 11, No. 11), e0164460.
- Lange, Glenn-Marie, Quentin Wodon and Kevin Carey, eds. (2018). The Changing Wealth of Nations 2018: Building a Sustainable Future. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
- La Notte, Alessandra, and Alexandra Marques (2019). Adjusted macroeconomic indicators to account for ecosystem degradation: an illustrative example. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 133–143.
- Costanza, Robert (2008). Ecosystem services: multiple classification systems are needed. Biological Conservation, vol. 141, No. 2 (February), pp. 350–352.

### Valuation methods, benefit transfer, and welfare measurement
- Bateman, Ian. J., and others (2000). Benefits Transfer in Theory and Practice: A Review and Some New Studies. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE) and School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia.
- Bateman, Ian. J., and others (2006). The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecological Economics, vol. 60, No. 2 (1 December), pp, 450–460.
- Boyle, Kevin J., and others (2010). The benefit-transfer challenges. Annual Review of Resource Economics, vol. 2, No. 1 (October), pp. 161–182.
- Johnston, Robert J., and Randall S. Rosenberger (2010). Methods, trends and controversies in contemporary benefit transfer. Journal of Economic Surveys, vol. 24, No. 3 (July), pp. 479–510.
- Johnston, Robert J., and others (2021). Guidance to enhance the validity and credibility of environmental benefit transfers. Environmental and Resource Economics, vol. 79, No. 3 (July), pp. 575–624.
- Fenichel, Eli P., and Joshua K. Abbott (2014). Natural capital: from metaphor to measurement. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 1, No. 1/2, pp. 1–27.
- Harberger, Arnold C. (1971). Three basic postulates for applied welfare economics: an interpretive essay. Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 9, No. 3 (September), pp. 785–797.
- Caparrós, Alejandro., and others (2017). Simulated exchange values and ecosystem accounting: theory and application to free access recreation. Ecological Economics, vol. 139 (September), pp. 140–149.

### Biodiversity, ecosystem condition, and indicators
- Díaz, Sandra, and others (2015). The IPBES conceptual framework: connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 14, pp. 1–16.
- Keith, David A., and others (2013). Scientific foundations for an IUCN Red List of ecosystems. PLoS ONE, vol. 8, No. 5 (May), e62111.
- Keith, Heather, and others (2020). A conceptual framework and practical structure for implementing ecosystem condition accounts. One Ecosystem, vol. 5, e58216.
- Bland, Lucie M., and others (2018). Assessing risks to marine ecosystems with indicators, ecosystem models and experts. Biological Conservation, vol. 227 (November), pp. 19–28.
- Burgass, Michael J., and others (2017). Navigating uncertainty in environmental composite indicators. Ecological Indicators, vol. 75 (April), pp. 268–278.
- Czúcz, Bálint, and others (2021a). A common typology for ecosystem characteristics and ecosystem condition variables. One Ecosystem, vol. 6, e58218.
- Czúcz, Bálint, and others (2021b). Selection criteria for ecosystem condition indicators. Ecological Indicators, vol. 133 (December), 108376.
- Karr, James R. (1993). Defining and assessing ecological integrity: beyond water quality. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 12, No. 9 (September), pp. 1521–1531.
- Hiers, J., and others (2012). The dynamic reference concept: measuring restoration success in a rapidly changing no-analogue future. Ecological Restoration, vol. 30, No. 1 (March), pp. 27–36.
- Jakobsson, Simon, and others (2020). Setting reference levels and limits for good ecological condition in terrestrial ecosystems: insights from a case study based on the IBECA approach. Ecological Indicators, vol. 116 (September), e106492.

### Spatial methods, remote sensing, and mapping ecosystem services
- Burkhard, Benjamin, and Joachim Maes, eds. (2017). Mapping Ecosystem Services. Sofia: Pensoft Publishers.
- Grenier, Marcelle, and others (2020). The use of combined Landsat and Radarsat data for urban ecosystem accounting in Canada. Statistical Journal of the IAOS, vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 823–839.
- Hanssen, Frank, and others (2021). Utilizing LiDAR data to map tree canopy for urban ecosystem extent and condition accounts in Oslo. Ecological Indicators, vol. 130 (November), e108007.
- Burkhard, Benjamin, and others (2014). Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands: concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification. Landscape Online, vol. 34, pp. 1–32.
- Badura, Tomas., and others (2020). Using individualised choice maps to capture the spatial dimensions of value within choice experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics, vol. 75, No. 2, pp. 297–322.
- Boyd, James, and Spencer Banzhaf (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, vol. 63, Nos. 2–3 (1 August), pp. 616–626.

### Policy guidance, frameworks, and implementation guidance
- European Commission (2016). Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services: Mapping and Assessing the Condition of Europe’s Ecosystems – Progress and challenges. 3rd report. March.
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2019). The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture, J. Bélanger and D. Pilling, eds. Rome: FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Assessments.
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and United Nations (2020). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (SEEA AFF). Rome.
- Barton, David N., and others. (2019). Defining Exchange and Welfare Values, Articulating Institutional Arrangements and Establishing the Valuation Context for Ecosystem Accounting. Discussion paper 5.1. Drafted as input into the revision of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting. 25 July.
- Eftec, RSPB and PwC (2015). Developing corporate natural capital accounts: guidelines for the natural capital committee. London: Economics for the Environment Consultancy. January.

### Methods, metrics, and technical contributions
- Fenichel, Eli P., Joshua K. Abbott and Seong Do Yun (2018). The nature of natural capital and ecosystem income (chap. 3). In Handbook of Environmental Economics, Volume 4.
- Dietzenbacher, Erik, and Bart Los (1998). Structural decomposition techniques: sense and sensitivity. Economic Systems Research, vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 307–324.
- Cadotte, Marc. W., Kelly Carscadden and Nicholas Mirotchnick (2011). Beyond species: functional diversity and the maintenance of ecological processes and services. Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 48, No. 5, pp. 1079–1087.
- Baumgärtner, Stefan (2007). The insurance value of biodiversity in the provision of ecosystem services. Natural Resource Modeling, vol. 20, No. 1 (spring), pp. 87–127.
- Baumgärtner, Stefan, and others (2015). Ramsey discounting of ecosystem services. Environmental and Resource Economics, vol. 61, No. 2, pp. 273–296.

*References section from the PDF "seeaeaea - References".*

### References

### References

### Biodiversity, ecosystem condition, and functional traits
- Lavorel, S., and others (1997). Plant functional classifications: from general groups to specific groups based on response to disturbance. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 12, No. 12 (December), pp. 474–478. 
- Mace, Georgina M. (2019). The ecology of natural capital accounting. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, vol. 35, No. 1 (spring), pp. 54–67. 
- Mace, Georgina M., Ken Norris and Alastair H. Fitter (2012). Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 27, No. 1 (January), pp. 19–26. 
- Mace, Georgina M., and others (2015). Review: towards a risk register for natural capital. Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 52, No. 3 (June), pp. 641–653. 
- Maes, Joachim, and others (2013). Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services: An Analytical Framework for Ecosystem Assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
- Maes, Joachim, and others (2016). Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services: Urban Ecosystems. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union
- Maes, Joachim, and others (2018). Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services: An Analytical Framework for Ecosystem Condition in EU. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available at https://catalogue.biodiversity.europa.eu/uploads/document/file/1673/5th_MAES_report.pdf. 
- Maes, Joachim, and others (2020). A review of ecosystem condition accounts: lessons learned and options for further development. One Ecosystem, vol. 5, e53485. 
- McNellie, Megan J., and others (2020). Reference state and benchmark concepts for better biodiversity conservation in contemporary ecosystems. Global Change Biology, vol. 26, No. 12 (December), pp. 6702–6714. 
- Mucina, Ladislav (2019). Biome: evolution of a crucial ecological and biogeographical concept. New Phytologist, vol. 222, No. 1 (April), pp. 97–114. 
- Olsson, David M., and others (2001). Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth – a new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. BioScience, vol. 51, No. 11 (November), pp. 933–938. 
- Pérez-Harguindeguy, N., and others (2013). New handbook for standardised measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Australian Journal of Botany, vol. 61, No. 3, pp. 167–234. 
- Pettorelli, Nathalie, and others (2018). Satellite remote sensing of ecosystem functions: opportunities, challenges and way forward. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation, vol. 4, No. 2 (June), pp. 71–93. 
- Stoddard, J. L., and others (2006). Setting expectations for the ecological condition of streams: the concept of reference condition. Ecological Applications, vol. 16, No. 4 (August), pp. 1267–1276. 
- Van Strien, A. J., L. L. Soldaat and R. D. Gregory (2012). Desirable mathematical properties of indicators for biodiversity change. Ecological Indicators, vol. 14, No. 1 (March), pp. 202–208. 
- Rowland, Jessica A., and others (2020). Testing the performance of ecosystem indices for biodiversity monitoring. Ecological Indicators, vol. 116, 106453 (September). 

### Ecosystem accounting frameworks, SEEA, and related methodological guidance
- Lof, Marjolein, and others (2017). SEEA EEA Carbon Account for the Netherlands. The Hague: Statistics Netherlands and Wageningen University. Available at www.cbs.nl/en-gb/background/2017/45/the-seea-eea-carbon-account-for-the-netherlands.
- United Nations (1993). Handbook of National Accounting: Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting. Studies in Methods, Series F, No. 61. Sales No. E.93.XVII.12.
- United Nations (2012). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting for Water (SEEA-Water). Series F, No. 100. Sales No. E.11.XVII.12. Available at https://seea.un.org/sites/seea.un.org/files/seeawaterwebversion_final_en.pdf.
- United Nations (2017). Framework for the Development of Environment Statistics (FDES 2013). Studies in Methods, Series M, No. 92. Sales No. 14.XVII.9. Available at https://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/FDES/FDES-2015-supporting-tools/FDES.pdf.
- United Nations (2019a). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting for Energy (SEEA-Energy). Studies in Methods, Series F, No. 116. Sales No. E.17.XVII.12. Available at https://seea.un.org/sites/seea.un.org/files/documents/seea-energy_final_web.pdf.
- United Nations (2019b). Technical Recommendations in support of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012 – Experimental Ecosystem Accounting. Studies in Methods, Series M, No. 97. Sales No. B.18.XVII.9. Available at https://seea.un.org/sites/seea.un.org/files/documents/EEA/seriesm_97e.pdf. 
- United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division (2019). The Global Statistical Geospatial Framework. Available at https://ggim.un.org/meetings/GGIM-committee/9th-Session/documents/The_GSGF.pdf.
- United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division (2022a). Guidelines on Biophysical Modelling for Ecosystem Accounting. Available at https://seea.un.org/sites/seea.un.org/files/publications/guidancebiomodelling_v36_30032022_web.pdf 
- United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division (2022b). Monetary Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Assets for Ecosystem Accounting. Interim report, 1st edition. Available at https://seea.un.org/sites/seea.un.org/files/techreportvaluationv15_final_21072022.pdf. 
- United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division, and United Nations Environment Programme (2021). Policy Scenario Analysis Using SEEA Ecosystem Accounting. Available at https://seea.un.org/content/policy-scenario-analysis-using-seea-ecosystem-accounting. 
- United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division, and United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) (2019). Report of the Expert Meeting on SEEA Indicators for SDGs and Post-2020 Agenda for Biodiversity, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 12-14 February 2019. Available at https://seea.un.org/sites/seea.un.org/files/expert_meeting_report_seea_for_sdgs_and_post_2020_1.pdf. All Expert Meeting documentation is available at https://seea.un.org/events/expert-meeting-seea-indicators-sdgs-and-post-2020-agenda.
- United Nations, European Commission, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and World Bank (2014). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012 – Central Framework. Series F, No. 109. Sales No. E.12.XVII.12. Available at https://seea.un.org/sites/seea.un.org/files/seea_cf_final_en.pdf.
- United Nations, European Commission, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and World Bank (2014). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012 – Experimental Ecosystem Accounting. Series F, No. 112. Sales No. E.13.XVII.13. Available at https://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seearev/eea_final_en.pdf. 
- United Nations, European Commission, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and World Bank (2017). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012 – Applications and Extensions. Series F, No. 114. Sales No. 14.XVII.8. Available at https://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seeaRev/ae_final_en.pdf. 
- United Nations, European Commission, International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and World Bank (2007). Handbook of National Accounting: Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting 2003. Studies in Methods, Series F, No. 61/Rev.1. Available at https://seea.un.org/content/handbook-national-accounting-integrated-environmental-and-economic-accounting-2003.
- United Nations, European Commission, International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and World Bank. System of National Accounts 2008. Series F, No. 2/Rev.5. Sales No. E.08.XVII.29.
- United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa (2017). Proportion of land that is degraded over total land area. Good practice guidance: SDG indicator 15.3.1, version 1.0. Edited from a report prepared by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Available at www.unccd.int/sites/default/files/relevant-links/2017-10/Good Practice Guidance_SDG Indicator 15.3.1_Version 1.0.pdf. 

### Valuation, monetary metrics, and natural capital accounting
- Löfgren, Karl-Gustaf (2010). The money metrics problem in dynamic welfare analysis. In Handbook of Environmental Accounting, Thomas Aronsson and Karl-Gustaf Löfgren, eds. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar. 
- Markandya, Anil, and others (2001). Dictionary of Environmental Economics. London: Earthscan.
- __________ (2002). Environmental Economics for Sustainable Growth: A Handbook for Practitioners. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar.
- Mace, Georgina M. (2019). The ecology of natural capital accounting. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, vol. 35, No. 1 (spring), pp. 54–67. 
- Obst, Carl, Lars Hein and Bram Edens (2016). National accounting and the valuation of ecosystem assets and their services. Environmental and Resource Economics, vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 1–23. 
- Ouyang, Zhiyun, and others (2020). Using gross ecosystem product (GEP) to value nature in decision making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 117, No. 25 (23 June), pp. 14593–14601. 
- Turner, Kerry, Tomas Badura and Silvia Ferrini (2019). Natural capital accounting perspectives: a pragmatic way forward. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 237–241. 
- Vallecillo, Sara, and others (2019a). Ecosystem Services Accounting. Part II. Pilot Accounts for Crop and Timber Provision, Global Climate Regulation and Flood Control. JRC Technical Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available at https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC116334.
- Vallecillo, Sara, and others (2019b). Ecosystem services accounts: valuing the actual flow of nature-based recreation from ecosystems to people. Ecological Modelling, vol. 392 (24 January), pp. 196–211. 
- United Nations Environment Programme (2014). Guidance Manual on Valuation and Accounting of Ecosystem Services for Small Island Developing States. Available at www.cbd.int/financial/monterreytradetech/unep-valuation-sids.pdf.
- United Nations Environment Programme (2018). Inclusive Wealth Report 2018. Nairobi. Available at www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/inclusive-wealth-report-2018.
- Weber, Jean-Louis (2014). Ecosystem Natural Capital Accounts: A Quick Start Package. CBD Technical Series, No. 77. Montreal, Canada: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Available at www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-77-en.pdf.
- United Nations (2022b). Monetary Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Assets for Ecosystem Accounting. Interim report, 1st edition. Available at https://seea.un.org/sites/seea.un.org/files/techreportvaluationv15_final_21072022.pdf. 

### Observations, monitoring, and essential variables
- Moltmann, Tim, and others (2019). A Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), delivered through enhanced collaboration across regions, communities, and new technologies. Frontiers in Marine Science, vol. 6, No. 291 (June). Available at www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmars.2019.00291.
- Muller-Karger, Frank E., and others (2018). Advancing marine biological observations and data requirements of the Complementary Essential Ocean Variables (EOVs) and Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) Frameworks. Frontiers in Marine Science, vol. 5, No. 211). Available at www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmars.2018.00211.
- Pettorelli, Nathalie, and others (2018). Satellite remote sensing of ecosystem functions: opportunities, challenges and way forward. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation, vol. 4, No. 2 (June), pp. 71–93. 
- Sayre, Roger, and others (2020). An assessment of the representation of ecosystems in global protected areas using new maps of World Climate Regions and World Ecosystems. Global Ecology and Conservation, vol. 21 (March), e00860. 
- Rowland, Jessica A., and others (2020). Testing the performance of ecosystem indices for biodiversity monitoring. Ecological Indicators, vol. 116, 106453 (September).
- UNEP-WCMC (2016). Exploring Approaches for Constructing Species Accounts in the Context of SEEA-EEA. Cambridge, United Kingdom. Available at www.unep-wcmc.org/system/comfy/cms/files/files/000/000/792/original/Exploring_Approaches_for_constructing_Species_Accounts_in_the_context_of_the_SEEA-EEA_FINAL.pdf.
- Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) (2021), Urban Nature Atlas Oslo. Available at https://nina.earthengine.app/view/urban-nature-atlas.

### Policy, governance, and applications
- Mackey, Brendan, and others (2015). Policy options for the world’s primary forests in multilateral environmental agreements. Conservation Letters, vol. 8, No. 2 (March/April), pp. 139–147. 
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Available at www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Synthesis.html.
- Ostrom, Elinor (2010). Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, vol. 100, No. 3 (June), pp. 641–672. 
- Rockström, Johan, and others (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, vol. 461, No. 7263 (24 September), pp. 472–475. 
- Turner, R. Kerry, and others (2003). Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions. Ecological Economics, vol. 46, No. 3 (October), pp. 493–510. 
- United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division, and United Nations Environment Programme (2021). Policy Scenario Analysis Using SEEA Ecosystem Accounting. Available at https://seea.un.org/content/policy-scenario-analysis-using-seea-ecosystem-accounting. 

### Sectoral and thematic studies, methods, and indicators
- Mackey, Brendan, and others (2015). Policy options for the world’s primary forests in multilateral environmental agreements. Conservation Letters, vol. 8, No. 2 (March/April), pp. 139–147. 
- Mori, Taiki, and others (2013). Soil GHG fluxes and C stocks as affected by phosphorus addition in a newly established Acacia mangium plantation in Indonesia. Forest Ecology and Management, vol. 310, No. 39, pp. 643–651. 
- Paracchini, Maria Luisa, and others (2011). An aggregation framework to link indicators associated with multifunctional land use to the stakeholder evaluation of policy options. Ecological Indicators, vol. 11, No. 1 (January), pp. 71–80. 
- Pascual, Unai, and others (2017). Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 26–27 (June), pp. 7–16. 
- Santos-Martín, F., and others (2019). Protecting nature is necessary but not sufficient for conserving ecosystem services: a comprehensive assessment along a gradient of land-use intensity in Spain. Ecosystem Services, vol. 35 (February), pp. 43–51. 
- Schaafsma, Marije (2015). Spatial and geographical aspects of benefit transfer. In Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values: A Guide for Researchers and Practitioners, R. J. Johnston, and others, eds. Dordrecht, Kingdom of the Netherlands: Springer Netherlands. Part IV, chap. 18, pp. 421–439. 
- Sorrenti, Simona (2017). Non-wood Forest Products in International Statistical Systems. Non-wood Forest Products Series, No. 22. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 
- Vallecillo, Sara, and others (2019a). Ecosystem Services Accounting. Part II. Pilot Accounts for Crop and Timber Provision, Global Climate Regulation and Flood Control. JRC Technical Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available at https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC116334.
- World Bank (2017). Forest Accounting Sourcebook: Policy Applications and Basic Compilation. Authors: Juan Pablo Castañeda and others. Washington, D.C.. Available at https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/772391580132234164/pdf/Forest-Accounting-Sourcebook-Policy-Applications-and-Basic-Compilation.pdf. 
- World Tourism Organization (2018). Linking the TSA and SEEA: a technical note. Madrid. Available at https://webunwto.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/2019-08/tsaseeatechnote.pdf.

### Conceptual foundations, ethics, and values
- Leopold, Aldo (1949). A Sand County Almanac: And Sketches Here and There. New York: Oxford University Press. Special commemorative edition issued in 1987.
- O’Connor, Seb, and Jasper O. Kenter (2019). Making intrinsic values work; integrating intrinsic values of the more-than-human world through the Life Framework of Values. Sustainability Science, vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 1247–1265. 
- O’Neill, John, Alan Holland and Andrew Light (2008). Environmental Values. London: Routledge.
- Sen, Amartya (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
- Walker, Brian (2019). Finding Resilience: Change and Uncertainty in Nature and Society. Clayton, Australia: CSIRO Publishing.

*Content compiled from the "References" section of the provided PDF chapter.*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/manuals-and-guides/2025/english/seeaeaea.pdf_