A sustainability scoreboard for crop provision in Europe.

The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (SEEA AFF) offers the possibility to assess and report detailed accounts for primary industries while establishing important linkages with relevant ecosystem services, in line with the SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA). In this paper, crop products and crop provision as ecosystem service are coherently merged to build a sustainability scoreboard for selected crops in European countries. The sustainability scoreboard uses the SEEA AFF accounts for crop products with data inputs from FAOSTAT and the Integrated system of Natural Capital Accounts (INCA) of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) for ecosystem services. The combined FAO-JRC accounting table described in this paper provides a common ground and measurement tool towards a sustainability scoreboard, useful to analyse how relevant economic, social and environmental components behave by country. This newly derived sustainability scoreboard presents significant differences with respect to analyses based on standard agricultural statistics. Lack of sufficiently accurate data remains the major limitation to current fuller implementation of the sustainability scoreboard. However reasonable assumption can be made that ongoing international data collection processes (including FAO questionnaires) integrated with Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis will supply in the near future additional relevant and applicable information.

Accounting for changes in flood control delivered by ecosystems at the EU level.

Ecosystem service accounts require quantifying the contribution of ecosystems to the society. However, estimation of the ecosystem service used (actual flow) remains still very challenging for regulating services. We developed an experimental ecosystem service account for flood control delivered by ecosystems including: 1) Biophysical modelling of ecosystem service potential, demand and actual flow. 2) Translation of the actual flow in monetary terms. 3) Compilation of accounting tables. Ultimately, we analysed changes in flood control between 2006 and 2012. The value of flood control delivered by ecosystems in 2012 is estimated at about 16 billion euro. This value increased by 1.14% between 2006 and 2012. This increase is mainly due to the sprawl of artificial areas into floodplains that benefit from flood control delivered by ecosystems. However, the role of natural capital to control floods is slightly decreasing. This is confirmed by the increase of artificial areas not protected by ecosystems (+1.9%, unmet demand). The role of natural capital to control floods could be enhanced by restoring ecosystems upstream from this unmet demand and increase the ecosystems contribution to human well-being. The methodology makes a significant contribution to the assessment of ecosystem services flow and the accounting framework.

Biodiversity Assessment of Value Chains: State of the Art and Emerging Challenges.

The consumption of materials and products is one of the drivers of biodiversity loss, which in turn affects ecosystem functioning and has socio-economic consequences worldwide. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a reference methodology for appraising the environmental impacts of products along their value chains. Currently, a generally accepted life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) framework for assessing biodiversity impacts is lacking. The existing LCIA models present weaknesses in terms of the impact drivers considered, geographical coverage, as well as the indicators and metrics adopted. Sound ecological indicators and metrics need to be integrated in order to better assess the impacts of value chains on biodiversity on a global, regional, and local scale. This review analyses studies which, using a life cycle perspective, assess the impacts of products' and services' value chains on biodiversity. We identify and discuss promising synergies between the studies which look beyond the life cycle context, and apply other biodiversity metrics. Our results highlight that the existing metrics of biodiversity impact assessment in LCA are poor at capturing the complexities of biodiversity. There are operational models at the midpoint level that expand on the assessed dimensions of biodiversity (e.g., ecosystem structure), and the drivers of biodiversity loss (e.g., assessment of species exploitation), but efforts are required to fully include these models in the LCA framework. In the business domain, many initiatives are developing frameworks to assess impacts on biodiversity. Many approaches make use of LCIA methods and input-output databases. However, these are generally coupled with other biodiversity metrics. This shows that the current LCA framework is not yet sufficient to support decision-making based on different sets of biodiversity indicators. Ecosystem accounting may provide important ecological information for both the inventory and the impact assessment stages of LCA, helping to disentangle the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem services. Looking beyond the LCA domain can lead us to new ways of advancing the coverage of biodiversity impacts, in a way that increases the relevance of LCA across a wider range of areas. Future work should assess the indicators provided in various policy contexts.

Development of a bioeconomy monitoring framework for the European Union: An integrative and collaborative approach.

The EU Bioeconomy Strategy, updated in 2018, in its Action Plan pledges an EU-wide, internationally coherent monitoring system to track economic, environmental and social progress towards a sustainable bioeconomy. This paper presents the approach taken by the European Commission's (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) to develop such a system. To accomplish this, we capitalise on (1) the experiences of existing indicator frameworks; (2) stakeholder knowledge and expectations; and (3) national experiences and expertise. This approach is taken to ensure coherence with other bioeconomy-related European monitoring frameworks, the usefulness for decision-making and consistency with national and international initiatives to monitor the bioeconomy. We develop a conceptual framework, based on the definition of a sustainable bioeconomy as stated in the Strategy, for a holistic analysis of the trends in the bioeconomy sectors, following the three pillars of sustainability (economy, society and environment). From this conceptual framework, we derive an implementation framework that aims to highlight the synergies and trade-offs across the five objectives of the Bioeconomy Strategy in a coherent way. The EU Bioeconomy Monitoring System will be publicly available on the web platform of the EC Knowledge Centre for Bioeconomy.

The theoretical frameworks behind integrated environmental, ecosystem, and economic accounting systems and their classifications.

The integration of ecosystem services and accounting systems can help different stakeholders understand the economic implications of environmental impacts. Any such integration requires clear understanding of how ecosystem services may match and integrate with traditional accounts. The Experimental Ecosystem Accounts (EEA) of the System of Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounts (SEEA) is developing quickly with applications at different administrative levels. One emerging feature is lack of agreement on conceptual notions and definitions that could reconcile different approaches. Some basic issues can be developed and solved only once a theoretical basis has been established. Since the first step of any application is to identify which ecosystem services to account for, this paper explores whether and to what extent the theoretical frameworks behind ecosystem services classification systems match the theoretical framework behind the SEEA EEA. This attempt first tackles the conceptual framework on the accounting side, then the conceptual framework on the ecosystem services classification side. Combining the two sides, it is possible to visualize matches or mismatches and to infer a few consequences and implications. Ecosystem services classification systems can guide separation of intra-ecosystem processes from final ecosystem services, and help disentangle ecosystem services from benefits, key requirements for integrating accounts.

How ecosystem services are changing: an accounting application at the EU level.

Ecosystem services accounts are a useful tool that provides relevant information on the role of ecosystems in delivering services, and the society benefiting from them. This paper presents the accounting workflow for ecosystem services at the European Union level adopted by the Knowledge Innovation Project on an Integrated system for Natural Capital and ecosystem services Accounting (KIP INCA) - a European Commission initiative. The workflow includes: 1) biophysical assessment of ecosystem services; 2) monetary valuation; and 3) compilation of accounting tables. Supply and use tables are presented for six ecosystem services assessed so far. The supply table shows woodland and forest, followed by wetlands, as the ecosystem types with the highest monetary value per unit area. Analyses of changes between 2000 and 2012 show an overall increase of the monetary value of ecosystem services, mainly due to an increase in demand for them. We also discuss advantages and disadvantages of adopting a fast-track approach, based on official statistics, in comparison to an accounting strategy based on spatial models. We propose a novel workflow for ecosystem services accounts, focused on assessment of the actual flow of ecosystem services, making a significant contribution to further development of the technical recommendations for ecosystem services accounts.

Ecosystem services accounts: Valuing the actual flow of nature-based recreation from ecosystems to people.

Natural capital accounting aims to measure changes in the stock of natural assets (i.e., soil, air, water and all living things) and to integrate the value of ecosystem services into accounting systems that will contribute to better ecosystems management. This study develops ecosystem services accounts at the European Union level, using nature-based recreation as a case study and following the current international accounting framework: System of Environmental-Economic Accounting - Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA). We adapt and integrate different biophysical and socio-economic models, illustrating the workflow necessary for ecosystem services accounts: from a biophysical assessment of nature-based recreation to an economic valuation and compilation of the accounting tables. The biophysical assessment of nature-based recreation is based on spatially explicit models for assessing different components of ecosystem services: potential, demand and actual flow. Deriving maps of ecosystem service potential and demand is a key step in quantifying the actual flow of the service used, which is determined by the spatial relationship (i.e., proximity in the case of nature-based recreation) between service potential and demand. The nature-based recreation accounts for 2012 show an actual flow of 40 million potential visits to 'high-quality areas for daily recreation', with a total value of EUR 50 billion. This constitutes an important contribution of ecosystems to people's lives that has increased by 26% since 2000. Practical examples of ecosystem services accounts, as shown in this study, are required to derive recommendations and further develop the conceptual and methodological framework proposed by the SEEA EEA. This paper highlights the importance of using spatially explicit models for ecosystem services accounts. Mapping the different components of ecosystem services allows proper identification of the drivers of changes in the actual service flow derived from ecosystems, socio-economic systems and/or their spatial relationship. This will contribute to achieving one of the main goals of ecosystem accounts, namely measuring changes in natural capital, but it will also support decision-making that targets the enhancement of ecosystems, their services and the benefits they provide.

Capacity as "virtual stock" in ecosystem services accounting.

Interest in ecosystem services accounting is growing exponentially. There are many un-solved issues that need to be addressed, the notion of capacity is among them. International guidelines suggest that capacity should constitute the link between the ecosystem assets accounts and the ecosystem services accounts. In order to address this issue, the authors use Supply and Use table for ecosystem services to show the relationship between (i) ecosystem assets and (ii) capacity, intended as "virtual stock" of individual ecosystem services. It is in fact important to distinguish ecosystem assets from capacity as "virtual stock": a comparison between asset accounts for natural resources and capacity is presented to clarify this difference. This novel approach is described together with its implications in order to feed further developments and discussion.

Beyond the economic boundaries to account for ecosystem services.

Ecosystem services (ES) accounts are essential to quantify and monitor the contribution of ecosystems to human well-being. The System of Environmental and Economic Accounting - Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA) is the first attempt to provide a set of standards to compile ecosystem accounts. We argue for the inclusion of an ecological perspective in the SEEA EEA that considers ecosystems to be more than input providers to the economy. Ecosystems can act as accounting units capable of producing, consuming and recording changes in regeneration and absorption rates. To account for that we propose (i) to identify ES typologies according to the way in which energy, biomass and information is released to generate services; (ii) to use these typologies to define the concepts of ES potential, ES potential flows, ES demand and ES actual flows; and (iii) to build the ES capacity accounts in monetary terms based on these concepts. These arguments are illustrated with case studies for water purification and crop pollination accounts in European countries. Extending the production boundary would allow the measurement of the sustainable use of ES and the establishment of causality between the use of ES and the value accrued by the economic actors and households.

Sustainability assessment and causality nexus through ecosystem service accounting: The case of water purification in Europe.

The paper builds on the Supply and Use Tables module within the System of integrated Environmental and Economic Accounts - Experimental Ecosystem Accounts (SEEA EEA) developed by the UN. We explore the evolution of Supply and Use Tables from the System of National Accounts (SNA) to the System of integrated Environmental and Economic Accounts - Central Framework (SEEA CF) and then to the SEEA EEA, and we propose a further extension: we propose that ecosystem types should be treated as accounting units able to produce, consume and exhibit changes in regeneration and absorption rates. The implications are first explained in the methodological section and then shown in the application where the water purification service is tested against two major policy issues: sustainability assessment (we show how to assess whether the ecosystem service is used sustainably by comparing the quantification of potential and actual flow) and causality nexus (we quantify the connection between the value of agricultural production and that of the ecosystem service used). The paper highlights how the overall outcomes change when considering different scales. A contrast emerges, for example, between the positive balance at the continental scale, where water purification services appear to be used sustainably (thanks to the high potential flow of Northern European countries) and the negative balance of almost all European countries when considered at a national scale. Taking advantage of the experimental opportunities offered by operating with external satellite accounts, we are able to show how the proposed complementary tables could support policy action.

Ecosystem services classification: A systems ecology perspective of the cascade framework.

Ecosystem services research faces several challenges stemming from the plurality of interpretations of classifications and terminologies. In this paper we identify two main challenges with current ecosystem services classification systems: i) the inconsistency across concepts, terminology and definitions, and; ii) the mix up of processes and end-state benefits, or flows and assets. Although different ecosystem service definitions and interpretations can be valuable for enriching the research landscape, it is necessary to address the existing ambiguity to improve comparability among ecosystem-service-based approaches. Using the cascade framework as a reference, and Systems Ecology as a theoretical underpinning, we aim to address the ambiguity across typologies. The cascade framework links ecological processes with elements of human well-being following a pattern similar to a production chain. Systems Ecology is a long-established discipline which provides insight into complex relationships between people and the environment. We present a refreshed conceptualization of ecosystem services which can support ecosystem service assessment techniques and measurement. We combine the notions of biomass, information and interaction from system ecology, with the ecosystem services conceptualization to improve definitions and clarify terminology. We argue that ecosystem services should be defined as the interactions (i.e. processes) of the ecosystem that produce a change in human well-being, while ecosystem components or goods, i.e. countable as biomass units, are only proxies in the assessment of such changes. Furthermore, Systems Ecology can support a re-interpretation of the ecosystem services conceptualization and related applied research, where more emphasis is needed on the underpinning complexity of the ecological system.

Physical and monetary ecosystem service accounts for Europe: A case study for in-stream nitrogen retention.

In this paper we present a case study of integrated ecosystem and economic accounting based on the System of Environmental Economic Accounting - Experimental Ecosystem Accounts (SEEA-EEA). We develop accounts, in physical and monetary terms, for the water purification ecosystem service in Europe over a 20-year time period (1985-2005). The estimation of nitrogen retention is based on the GREEN biophysical model, within which we impose a sustainability threshold to obtain the physical indicators of capacity - the ability of an ecosystem to sustainably supply ecosystem services. Key messages of our paper pertain the notion of capacity, operationalized in accounting terms with reference to individual ecosystem services rather than to the ecosystem as a whole, and intended as the stock that provides the sustainable flow of the service. The study clarifies the difference between sustainable flow and actual flow of the service, which should be calculated jointly so as to enable an assessment of the sustainability of current use of ecosystem services. Finally, by distinguishing the notion of 'process' (referred to the ecosystem) from that of 'capacity' (pertaining specific services) and proposing a methodology to calculate capacity and flow, we suggest an implementable way to operationalize the SEEA-EEA accounts.

Multi-scale environmental accounting: methodological lessons from the application of NAMEA at sub-national levels.

Extending the application of integrated environmental and economic accounts from the national to the local level of government serves several purposes. They can be used not only as an instrument for communicating on the state of the environment and reporting the results of policies, but also as an operational tool - for setting the objectives and designing policies - if made available to the local authorities who have responsibility over the administration of natural resources, land use and conservation policies. The aim of the paper is to test the feasibility of applying hybrid flow accounts at the intermediate and local government levels. As an illustration, NAMEA for air emissions and wastes is applied to a Region, a Province and a Municipality, thus covering the three nested levels of local government in Italy. The study identifies the main issues raised by multi-scale environmental accounting and provides an applied discussion of feasible solutions.