Page 168 - Invited Paper Session (IPS) - Volume 2

IPS195 Peter van de Ven
major step forward, which will allow for a better monitor and analysis of the
externalities of economic activities in the form of emissions, and of the growth
of environment-friendly activities. Furthermore, an improved accounting for
mineral and energy resources would make it possible to calculate a Gross
Domestic Product, which is not only adjusted for depreciation of produced
assets, but also adjusted for depletion of natural resources.
However, much more needs to be done. The economy and the society at
large are embedded in and depending on the limitations provided by Planet
Earth. From a sustainability perspective, the most important assets are
ecosystem assets. § 2.31 of SEEA 2012 – Experimental Ecosystem Accounting
(SEEA-EEA) defines ecosystems as “... spatial areas comprising a combination
of biotic and abiotic components and other characteristics that function
together”. These assets provide ecosystem services, benefits used in economic
and other human activity, a rather euphemistic formulation for services on
which human and other life depends. In SEEA-EEA, three main types of services
are distinguished: (i) provisioning services (e.g. timber from forests); (ii)
regulating services (e.g. forests proving carbon sinks); and (iii) cultural services
(e.g. the pleasure of visiting a national park). However, ecosystems accounting
is not straightforward at all. In physical terms, consensus has more or less been
achieved on the way forward. However, accounting for the monetary value of
the stocks of ecosystem assets, and their degradation over time, is a slightly
different story. Notwithstanding the complexity, much progress has been
made in recent years, and work is ongoing to further improve methodologies.
In future, all this work could potentially lead to the compilation of physical and
monetary estimates for stocks and degradation of ecosystems.

3. A broader framework of “national accounts”
Although the above initiatives are important in their own right, it is of the
utmost importance to develop metrics that cast a wider net on the monitoring
of the well-being of people and the sustainability of societal developments. As
(sustainable) well-being is a multidimensional phenomenon, it may not be
possible to capture it in one catch-all indicator, and one thus has to agree and
rely on a set of indicators which monitor the most relevant aspects. An
important example of capturing well-being by a limited set of indicators is the
OECD Better Life Index, in which eleven areas of (sustainable) well-being are
being monitored: housing; income; jobs; community; education; environment;
civic engagement; health; life satisfaction; safety; and work-life balance. For
each of these aspects, regional and interpersonal distributions are also taken
into account. If inequalities of say income, wealth, health, education, etc.
coincide, the impact on well-being for the relevant people at the bottom of
these distributions can be very detrimental indeed.

155 | I S I W S C 2 0 1 9