-
Search
As this is such an immense topic, it might be helpful to zoom in on some specifics, eg selecting some countries and starting to look at how they are accounting for their Renewable Natural Capital (RNC).

List of countries
(click on a country name in this list to go to a detailed section about that country)


China
Indonesia
​Canada

​

​

Introduction (eg how I selected the countries to look at)


​Below is a table showing the ten countries with the largest value of Renewable Natural Capital in 2020 (expressed in 2019 USD), as per information available at the World Bank. 

From the World Bank data, I've calculated (and included) the percentage that each of those RNC numbers represents out of the total national wealth of each of those countries in 2020.

Lots of caveats, the main ones being:

a) Natural Capital (NC) accounting is in its infancy in National Accounts. For example, many countries record very few categories of natural assets in their National Accounts, but other countries are much more forthcoming on a wide range of natural assets

b) Even where RNC is included in countries' National Accounts, it's probably a gross under-estimate, for various reasons


Some potential differential factors between countries (not an exhaustive list):
-       Country physical and ecological characteristics
-       The physical economy in relation to nature, and in particular RNC
-       The national “production boundary”, accounting, measurement and valuation methods
-       Policies on nature and their implementation
-       The extent to which nature is already being impacted by AGW and actions to tackle it


Therefore, it's quite difficult to make firm conclusions from the data, except to say that RNC does represent a significant proportion of the wealth of some of the ten countries listed, which is food for thought, at the very least.


Here's an updated version of the table, with some comparatives added. 

​
The changes from 1995 to 2020 are all over the place, showing that even the ten countries with the highest value of Renewable Natural Capital in 2020 have had very different trends from each other since 1995.

I'm going to select a small subset of these countries and review their Natural Capital accounting, asking some of the most obvious questions, eg what it tells us about their success in stewardship of, in particular, Renewable Natural Capital.



​
Before diving further into the numbers, the table below shows, for each of the three countries, what they have and haven't yet implemented in terms of the UN SEEA (System of Environmental-Economic Accounting) which is the key international framework for Natural Capital assets and ecosystem services accounting. 

The data in it was sourced from the 2025 global assessment of SEEA on the following webpage:
https://seea.un.org/content/2025-global-assessment-environmental-economic-accounting​

Specifically, the source spreadsheet is accessible directly using this link:
​https://seea.un.org/sites/seea.un.org/files/files/Global_assessment/2025_GA/global_assessment_seea_25_for_website_0.xlsx
The above table clearly illustrates an important part of the challenge during the implementation of approaches to accounting for nature.  Even with this small selection of three countries, the countries differ substantially from each other on where they are in their journey to implement it.  This is only three countries out of a total of about 100 that have so far started to implement SEEA.


​




​

Indonesia

Source - "Indonesian Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (IBSAP) 2025-2045"

​
​Indonesia is notable for the significant increase (28%) in the reported value of its RNC from 1995 to 2020.  Is this a good news story or not?  We have to dig under the surface of the headline numbers to answer that question.

The good news is that the country's national statistical organisation reports on RNC as part of its natural capital accounting approach. It also calculates a Net Domestic Product, by deducting natural capital depletion from GDP. And the natural capital accounting links into national sustainable development plans and objectives and its approach to tackling AGW.

The bad news is that having a plethora of data brings its own challenges.

Yes, there is table upon table of data available on various categories of land use in Indonesia (eg comparing 2020 with 2024), types of economic activity which use natural resources, valuations of opening and closing stocks. And some commentary about pressures such as population growth, legal and illegal logging, changes in agricultural crops (palm oil) etc.

But piecing it together without it becoming data spaghetti is a major challenge.

I think what I need is a well-formulated research question. Something to provide a focus and guiderails for navigating through the data in a way that can provide "meaning behind the numbers".


How about these for research questions:

a)    To what extent is the increase of 28% in Indonesia's reported Renewable Natural Capital (value) between 1995 and 2020 a result of volume changes, changes in valuation per unit, changes in categorisation (or adding or dropping categories of asset) or changes in measurement approaches?

b)    What does answering that question tell us about the health, adequacy and sustainability of RNC in Indonesia?


It seems that question a) has been answered, as someone has already done some work on it. This from Google AI is a summary:

"The 28% increase in Indonesia’s reported Renewable Natural Capital value between 1995 and 2020 is primarily a result of changes in valuation per unit and changes in measurement approaches (specifically the inclusion of new asset categories), which masked significant negative volume changes in critical sectors like forestry."

It appears that the main driver of the increased RNC value from 1995 to 2020 is an increase in the range of assets included in the reported numbers, and also large scale conversion of forests into agricultural land (mostly for palm oil production).  The headline value of RNC therefore masks an actual reduction in the amount and value of Indonesian forests.

​
Useful sources:

THE NATIONAL MEDIUM-TERM DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 2020-2024
​
INDONESIAN BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN (IBSAP) 2025-2045

Choy (2025) "The Tropical Peatlands in Indonesia and Global Environmental Change: A Multi-Dimensional System-Based Analysis and
Policy Implications"
​


The map below shows that indonesia is the biggest producer of palm oil in the world.  
There are global initiatives to minimise ecological impacts of palm oil production.  For example, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), is working to transform the palm oil industry globally to make it sustainable (eg to drastically reduce the deforestation and other impacts).  This is seen as being a better path than ceasing the production and use of palm oil, because the alternative raw materials for use in many consumer products, and many alternative uses of the land currently used for palm oil production, would be worse for the environment. 

There's some excellent analysis of the main issues surrounding palm oil at Our World In Data here:
​https://ourworldindata.org/palm-oil



​







​

China

Source - Zhang (2019) "Multiple Stressors in Chinas Freshwater Ecoregions"

​

China is notable for the total value of its RNC (over USD 14 trillion in 2020), which is the largest of any country in the reported information at World Bank and is an order of magnitude greater than the second ranked country, India.  

​China's RNC as a proportion of its total wealth reduced from 24% in 1995 to 9% in 2020.  That's the bad news.

There is some good news, however.  At the policy level, China is making lots of the right sorts of "mood music" towards creating what it has called "Ecological Civilization". 

For example, China piloted the use of Natural Capital Accounting in two provinces, starting in 2017, as part of the UN NCAVES project. 

From the NCAVES project website:

"The final NCAVES China report provides an overview of the work undertaken in China to compile ecosystem accounts under the SEEA Ecosystem Accounting framework.  The report presents a synthesis of China’s work in the NCAVES project, covering ecosystem account pilots in Guangxi and Guizhou, policy scenario analysis on the ecological compensation scheme in the Xijiang River basin, research on the valuation of natural resources balance sheet, alignment of SEEA and Gross Ecosystem Product and national assessment on natural capital accounting policy in China."

From Chinese Academy of Sciences (2020):

"Faced [with] serious eco-environmental problems, the Chinese government recognizes that China must change its development model from unbounded growth to respecting environmental limits. President Xi and China’s State Council are envisioning a new pathway forward, known as the creation of an Ecological Civilization. The aim is to improve livelihoods by achieving harmony between humanity and nature. The Ecological Civilization is not simply a philosophical vision of social development. Policymakers are constructing a new governance strategy, with major reforms across all social sectors to better balance development with ecological protection. The Ecological Civilization captures China’s approach to inclusive, green growth. It seeks to promote environmental quality and human livelihoods by enhancing and sustaining natural capital."

Under a heading of "Government Performance Assessment", Chinese Academy of Sciences (2020) says:

"Green government performance assessment is an import part of Ecological Civilization. The “Decision of the CCCPC (Central Committee of the Communist Party of China) on Some Major Issues Concerning Comprehensively Deepening the Reform” (hereafter referred to as “Decision”) creatively suggested that we “explore ways to compile a natural resource balance sheet.” Exploring the creation of balance sheets for natural resource assets. Guidelines will be formulated on preparing balance sheets for natural resource assets. Asset and liability accounting methods will be developed for use with water, land, forest, and other types of resources; accounts will be established for accounting natural resources in physical terms; classificatory criteria and statistical standards will be clearly laid out; and changes in natural resource assets will be regularly assessed. The preparation of balance sheets for natural resource assets will take place on a trial basis at the municipal (county) level, with physical accounts of major natural resource assets being assessed and results released.
Auditing outgoing officials’ management of natural resource assets. On the basis of the preparation of balance sheets for natural resource assets and making reasonable allowance for objective natural factors, active efforts will be made to explore the objectives, content, methods, and appraisal indicators for auditing outgoing officials’ management of natural resource assets. Based on the changes in natural resource assets within their area of jurisdiction during their term of office, through auditing, an objective evaluation will be carried out of the outgoing official’ s management of natural resource assets; an official’ s liability will be determined in accordance with the law, and auditing results will be put to better use. Trials [ie pilot projects] for preparing balance sheets for natural resource assets and for audits of the management of natural resource assets by outgoing officials will be conducted in the cities of Hulun Buir in Inner Mongolia, Huzhou in Zhejiang, Loudi in Hunan, Chishui in Guizhou, and Yan’ an in Shaanxi."

​
An important question is how China is incorporating Natural Capital Accounting into its National Accounts (under the SNA) based on the results of those trials/pilots.


​
Useful sources:

final NCAVES China report (2021) 

Chinese Academy of Sciences (2020) Appendix D:  National Assessment Report on Policy related to Natural Capital Accounting in China


Something that is immediately impressive about recent reports on its explorations of Natural Capital Accounting is that they also incorporate concepts such as Maximum Sustainable Yield.  This shows that their approach is not just superficial.  It encompasses techniques for demonstrating a willingness to manage harvesting rates within sustainable boundaries (or at least measuring current progress against those boundaries).  This is part of the Chinese approach to Gross Ecosystem Product (an alternative economic measure to GDP) within its overall vision of Ecological Civilisation. 
 

From Google AI:

"China's Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP) framework, designed to value ecosystem services, in principle accounts for sustainable resource use. It tracks the value of ecosystem assets, often including sustainable harvests of timber and fish, while monitoring for depletion or appreciation [of the natural asset that yielded the harvest] to encourage ecological civilization. 

Key details of GEP regarding sustainable harvesting include:

  • Asset Management: GEP acts as a "green GDP" metric, emphasizing the maintenance of ecosystem health to ensure long-term, sustainable provisioning services.
 
  • Harvesting Rates: While specific protocols for below-maximum-sustainable-yield (MSY) harvesting vary, the system is designed to value ecological assets that are managed responsibly rather than depleted, encouraging conservation.
 
  • Assessment Approach: GEP measures both the value of ecological services (water, air) and direct material products (food, timber). It seeks to include changes in the stock of assets to reflect sustainability in regional development."

Sources:

Ouyang (2020) "Using gross ecosystem product (GEP) to value nature in decision making"

McCook (2025) "Marine ecosystem services and natural capital in China - Opportunities for improved understanding valuing and policy"


More from Google AI -------------------:

"China's Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP) measures the current annual "flow" of final ecosystem goods and services—such as timber, food, and water—but it does not [yet] inherently [I think 'explicitly' is a better word] restrict or adjust for whether those resources are harvested below the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). 

Key details regarding GEP and sustainability include:
  • A Measure of Flow, Not Stock: GEP captures the aggregate monetary value of ecosystem services used in a specific period. Like GDP, it can actually increase through the non-sustainable use of assets, such as harvesting fish or timber at rates exceeding their natural renewal.
  • Complementary Monitoring: To address this, China tracks Ecological Assets (EA) alongside GEP. While GEP measures the income from nature, EA tracks the stocks (depreciation or appreciation) to provide a more complete picture of long-term sustainability.
  • Calculation Components: GEP is comprised of three main categories:
    • Material Services: Direct products like crops, timber, and livestock.
    • Regulating Services: Benefits like carbon sequestration and water purification (often making up the majority of GEP value).
    • Cultural Services: Non-material benefits like ecotourism"

Excerpt from Google AI ends --------------------------

Although the Chinese approach to GEP is a step forward, I'm reserving judgement on it until I establish whether it suffers from the same fundamental problem that plagues its less ecological brother, GDP.

GDP is a measure of throughput, and many events that should be a negative (equivalent to a cost in profit and loss accounting) are included in GDP as a positive (increasing GDP).  An obvious example is the expenditures on cleaning up environmental pollution caused by our societies or companies.  That expenditure is accounted for in GDP as a positive, increasing GDP, which in turn encurages more of the activity that caused it (ie the polluting activity), requiring more cleaning up, because that increases GDP further, whereas, under a profit and loss accounting, the cleanup activity would be treated as a cost (a negative) to be minimised through actions to reduce the pollution being generated from the underlying societal or corporate activities.

If this conceptual error in GDP is also reflected in the approach to GEP, then it will encourage the profligate exploitation of ecosystem productivity beyond Maximum Sustainable Yield, which would degrade and reduce the ecosystem assets within the Natural Capital heading in the balance sheet.  

Useful references on this:

Zheng (2023) "Gross Ecosystem Product - Quantifying nature for environmental and economic policy innovation"

Ouyang (2020) - Article; "Using gross ecosystem product (GEP) to value nature in decision making"

Ouyang (2020) - Full paper: "Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP): A Tractable Approach for Bringing Ecological Information into Decision-Making"


The Ouyang (2020) full paper seems to recognise this issue and its implications:

"Both GEP and GDP use accounting measures to estimate the value of goods and services, rather than a measure of economic welfare. Accounting measures equivalent to income suffer from well-known problems, such as an increase in value when supply [quantity] declines and demand is inelastic; by contrast, welfare necessarily declines with a contraction of supply [quantities]. Accounting measures, however, are typically far easier to calculate [than economic welfare], do not require estimating elasticities, and do not require more extensive (and sometimes inaccessible) data for calculating welfare measures.
While GEP and GDP are useful measures of current flows of value, they are not adequate indicators of sustainability as neither considers the capital stocks (natural or man-made) upon which they rely. Current income can be increased through the non-sustainable use of ecosystem assets, for example by harvesting a stock above its replacement or renewal rate. Measures of sustainability should be tied closely to measures of the value of assets. In principle, changes in the value of ecosystem assets could be used to calculate Net Ecosystem Product (NEP), by incorporating the change in the value of stocks of ecosystem assets into GEP. The value of an ecosystem asset should, in principle, equal the present value of the flow of all ecosystem services generated by the ecosystem asset, which offers a way to estimate its values. There have been several attempts to measure stocks of ecosystem assets in monetary terms. These efforts have excluded consideration of many types of ecosystem assets, however, generally including only the value of assets closely tied to market values (minerals, oil and gas, timber, fish). In practice, estimating ecosystem asset values is difficult, and China along with most applications of the SEEA EEA framework currently measure ecosystem assets in biophysical rather than monetary terms. Alongside GEP, China is tracking change in the stocks of ecosystem assets to account for the depreciation or appreciation of assets."

However, the only solution Ouyang seems to suggest is to use GEP alongside management of the extent, state and value of the Natural Capital assets (in the national balance sheet) that produce the flows of the relevant ecosystem services.

Is that sufficient to prevent harvesting of ecosystem services in excess of Maximum Sustainable Yield? 

​Could a better solution be found by making the accounting for ecosystem service provision/consumption and the accounting for natural capital assets tie together in ways that would automatically incentivise adequate maintenance/enhancement of the assets at the same time as incentivising optimisation of the provision of ecosystem services within MSY constraints?

Below is the result of a query put to DeepSeek on this matter.

DeepSeek:
"Net Ecosystem Product (NEP) is a good way forward if you accept that it is a means, not an end. It can help align economic signals with ecological realities, thereby improving environmental sustainability. However, it does not automatically deliver economic sustainability (fair, stable, long-term prosperity for all). Used alongside ecological ceilings and social foundations (as in Doughnut Economics), NEP is a powerful accounting tool—but alone, it is insufficient and potentially dangerous if valuations are narrow or misapplied."
​
Follow-up question:
"Would you agree that Net Ecosystem Product needs to be used alongside Maximum Sustainable Yield and Planetary Boundaries work, as well as work to ensure that discount rates are not too high in NPV calculations of natural capital degradation (eg from deforestation)?"


DeepSeek answer -------------------------

Yes, I would strongly agree. That is a precise and sophisticated synthesis. In fact, your formulation addresses three of the most critical weaknesses of a standalone Net Ecosystem Product (NEP) approach.

To put it directly: NEP tells you what you have and in which direction it’s changing. But without Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), Planetary Boundaries (PB), and appropriate discount rates, NEP is like a speedometer without a redline, a fuel gauge, or a sense of the time horizon—dangerously incomplete.

Here is a breakdown of why each of your three additions is essential, and how they work together.

1. NEP + Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY): Avoiding the “High NEP, Collapsing Fishery” Paradox
  • The problem with NEP alone: NEP could show a positive value for a fishery even as overfishing occurs, as long as current catches are high. It doesn’t inherently know the regeneration rate.
  • What MSY adds: MSY provides the extraction limit. It tells you the maximum harvest that leaves the ecosystem’s productive capacity intact.
  • The synergy: Use NEP to value the standing stock and annual service flow. Use MSY to set the safe withdrawal rate. If NEP is rising but extraction exceeds MSY, the NEP is a mirage—future NEP will crash.
  • Example: The Atlantic cod collapse. A NEP account might have shown positive value from cod catches for years, masking the underlying depletion. MSY would have signaled danger early.
2. NEP + Planetary Boundaries (PB): Preventing Local Optimization from Causing Global Collapse
  • The problem with NEP alone: NEP is usually calculated at national or regional scales. A country could have a rising NEP by intensifying agriculture (increasing provisioning services) while crossing a planetary boundary (e.g., nitrogen cycle disruption or biodiversity loss) that doesn’t show up in its local NEP.
  • What PB adds: PB provides the global biophysical ceilings (climate change, land-system change, biosphere integrity, etc.). Crossing them threatens the entire Earth system, including the long-term viability of all local NEPs.
  • The synergy: NEP should be treated as the flow of value within the safe operating space defined by PB. Any NEP-generating activity that pushes a boundary (e.g., deforestation-driven NEP gains that erode biosphere integrity) should be discounted or penalized.
  • Example: A country might clear peatlands for palm oil—raising its NEP (provisioning services up, carbon storage down—but if carbon storage is undervalued, net NEP might still be positive). PB (climate boundary) would flag the CO2 emissions as unacceptable regardless of the local accounting trick.
3. NEP + Lower/Declining Discount Rates: Fixing the Tyranny of Short-Term Thinking
  • The problem with standard discount rates: Neoclassical economics often uses discount rates of 3–7% for natural capital. At 5%, a forest’s carbon sequestration worth $1000 in 50 years is worth only $87 today. This incentivizes liquidation now (“burn the forest, take the cash”).
  • What appropriate discount rates add: For very long-lived assets with irreversible damage (deforestation, species extinction, climate tipping points), ethical and ecological economics argues for low or declining discount rates (e.g., Stern Review used ~1.4%; some argue for 0% for critical natural capital).
  • The synergy: NEP estimates future ecosystem service flows. The discount rate translates those future values into present decisions. If the rate is too high, even massive future degradation looks “economically rational” to destroy today.
  • Your specific example (deforestation): A standard NPV calculation for a forest might favor logging because timber revenue arrives early (discounted lightly) while carbon and biodiversity benefits arrive far in the future (discounted heavily). Using a low or declining discount rate flips the result: preservation wins because long-term services are not arbitrarily devalued.

How the Four Work Together (A Decision Framework)

​Imagine a national policy for a tropical forest: 


NEP
What is the total annual value of this forest (timber, carbon, water, tourism, biodiversity)?  Baseline: $500 million/year.

MSY
How much timber can we extract without reducing long-term NEP?   MSY = 10,000 m³/year. Current extraction = 25,000 m³/year → violation.

PB
Does current land use pressure push us beyond safe biosphere integrity or climate boundaries?   Deforestation rate of 2% pushes biome toward a tipping point → flag as high risk.

Discount rate
If we preserve forest, how do we value its 100-year carbon storage today?   Use 1.5% declining rate → preservation NPV high. Use 6% constant rate → logging NPV wins.

Conclusion from all four: Logging must be reduced to MSY levels; remaining forest is critical for PB; preservation is economically rational with correct discounting.


The Only Potential Caveat (Which You’ve Already Handled)One might argue that MSY is itself a flawed concept for complex ecosystems (it was designed for single-species fisheries, not forests or coral reefs). The modern alternative is Ecological Tipping Points or Precautionary MSY (setting harvest below theoretical MSY). But that is a refinement, not a rejection. Your broader point—that NEP needs biophysical limits—stands.


Final Verdict on Your Proposal
Yes, unequivocally. NEP without MSY is accounting without a budget limit. NEP without Planetary Boundaries is local optimization leading to global collapse. NEP with conventional discount rates is a machine for justifying destruction. Your proposed quartet—NEP + MSY + PB + ethically-informed discounting—is precisely the integrated framework that ecological economists have been calling for. It moves sustainability from a slogan to an operational decision-making system.

​DeepSeek answer ends ------------------------------










​

Canada

Source - Statistics Canada - "Human Activity and the Environment 2021 - Accounting for ecosystem change in
Canada"

​
Canada is notable for the small percentage of its recent reported total wealth (in 2020) that comprises RNC (under 4%).  
This is a lot lower than the previous examples I've analysed, and raises important questions about whether its RNC is being grossly under-valued or under-reported in its approaches to Natural Capital Accounting and National Accounts.

It's also worth comparing it to other countries I've analysed here, because it's a much more affluent country (per capita) than the other countries analysed.  A big question that prompts is whether Canada's relative affluence has come at the expense of its stocks of RNC.  An RNC proportion of under 4% suggests that this might indeed be the case.

There are some "green shoots" in terms of the Canadian Government's recent attempts to push forward on the Natural Capital Accounting agenda. 

For example, the following is from the Canadian Government in March 2026:
https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2026/03/31/prime-minister-carney-launches-new-nature-strategy-protect-canadas

"Our government will:
  • Launch an Expert Taskforce on Natural Capital Accounting and Nature Financing in spring 2026. This taskforce will explore how to better account for the value of nature and how to integrate it into decision-making. It will also recommend new policies, incentives, and financing tools that encourage businesses and investors to support conservation.

Canada is the world’s second-largest country, with the world’s longest coastline and one of the world’s largest marine territories. Protecting our natural heritage is a task our government will deliver with the focus, ambition, and strategy it deserves. We will work with provincial and territorial governments, Indigenous Peoples, local governments, industry, and conservation organisations to deliver on our national and international commitments – and protect Canada’s natural environment for generations to come."

From the same website:

Quick facts
  • Canada has a vast amount of natural capital. It is home to 20% of the world’s total freshwater, 37% of the world’s lakes, 25% of the world’s wetlands, 24% of the world’s boreal forests, the world’s longest coastline, and one of the world’s largest marine territories. It also provides essential habitat for approximately 80,000 species.
  • The 2022 United Nations Biodiversity Conference in Montréal advanced key commitments to identify critical areas for our biodiversity and ecosystems – and to conserve those habitats, in turn helping reverse the effects of climate change.
  • The federal government administers 6% of the land in Canada, of which 4.7% is protected. Provinces and territories manage 76% of the land, Indigenous Peoples 6%, and private owners 12%. In the marine environment, the federal government has primary control, managing environmental protection in collaboration with provinces, territories, and Indigenous Peoples.
  • The federal government’s nature agreements with partners such as British Columbia and the First Nations Leadership Council,  Québec,  Nova Scotia, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Indigenous governments are already helping identify and conserve areas rich in biodiversity, while supporting local communities.
  • The Government of Canada is leading a collaborative effort with Indigenous Peoples and the governments of Alberta and the Northwest Territories to deliver on a multi-year action plan to address concerns regarding the conservation of the natural heritage elements, for which Wood Buffalo National Park is recognised as a World Heritage site.
Associated link and for various resources about Canada's Natural Capital:
​https://www.statcan.gc.ca/hub-carrefour/quality-life-qualite-vie/environment-environnement/natural-capital-naturel-capitale-eng.htm
​
From "Office of the Chief Science Advisor of Canada - 2025 - Improving Natural Capital Accounting in Canada":

"While UN adoption of the SEEA is somewhat recent, the development of NCA approaches started in the 1970s, and draft SEEA versions were available in the 1990s. Canada was not among the earliest pioneers (such as the Netherlands, the UK and Australia), but it can be characterized as an early-to-mid adopter. Canada has been experimenting with and producing environmental-economic accounts for a few decades now, with Statistics Canada publishing physical flow and asset accounts as well as experimental ecosystem accounts."

It's worth noting that Experimental Ecosystem Accounts are "satellite accounts" in the National Accounts.  Therefore, they are not part of the "core accounts" and numbers from them are not included in the country's National Balance Sheets.   Experimental Accounts are essentially a form of memorandum accounts - eg assets and flows that are used to support the economy but for which asset enhancements or asset degradations do not get reflected in the country's main economic and accounting reckoning.   As sets of experimental accounts get moved into core accounts over time, the core accounts (including National Balance Sheets) get updated to reflect the national situation regarding those natural assets, their extent, condition and contribution and their enhancement or degradation.  It's not clear from Office of the Chief Science Advisor of Canada (2025) which natural capital asset categories are part of core national accounts and which are not.  This is the case in many countries, including the UK.  Another way of describing this, in economic language, is in relation to the Production Boundary.  Assets and flows that are within the Production Boundary are included in core national accounts.  I give more information about the SNA 2025 in a separate section accessible by clicking the relevant navigation tab at the top of this website.

​
The Chief Science Advisor of Canada is explicit about some accounting challenges, even for the satellite (experimental) accounting (let alone for core accounting):

"... some important questions remain as to whether current natural capital accounting approaches adequately reflect the full range
of nature’s contributions to people and the economy. Certain physical stocks and flows may be underrepresented, and important cultural, social and non-market values of nature are not consistently captured in current approaches... For some natural capital assets, there are insufficient data and information to accurately track their size, condition and changes over time. This lack of high-quality data makes it difficult to produce reliable estimates of stocks and flows, and introduces significant uncertainty in mapping these assets over space and time. As a result, any estimates of the ecosystem services they provide, or the benefits derived from them, are also uncertain.
These data gaps are particularly evident for assets such as wetlands, grasslands, and coastal and marine ecosystems, where consistent national spatial coverage and long-term temporal data remain limited. In other cases, such as soil health, species composition or ecosystem resilience, data exist but are not yet systematically integrated into accounting frameworks."


So, what types of Renewable Natural Capital stocks and flows are included in Canada's core National Accounts?

Google AI summary -------------

"Selected renewable natural capital is included in Canada's core national accounts (national balance sheet accounts), primarily in the form of timber. 

While the core System of National Accounts (SNA) focuses heavily on produced assets, Statistics Canada integrates "Natural Resource Asset Accounts" into the national balance sheet, which measure the stock value of natural resources that have an economic value. 

Key Renewable and Non-Renewable Assets in Core Accounts:
  • Timber: Represents a renewable resource that is tracked in physical and monetary units and included in national wealth estimates.
  • Land: Included under non-produced assets.
  • Energy and Mineral Resources: [Although they are non-renewable], crude oil, bitumen, natural gas, and minerals (gold, nickel, etc.) are included in the resource asset accounts. 

Future and Satellite Account Developments:
  • Renewable Energy: The updated 2025 System of National Accounts (SNA) explicitly recognizes renewable energy resources—such as wind and solar—as economic assets.
  • Extended Ecosystems: Broader environmental services (such as carbon sequestration by wetlands or air filtration by forests) are largely tracked in the Canadian System of Environmental and Resource Accounts (a satellite account) rather than the core GDP-producing accounts. 

While natural resource assets are integrated into the balance sheet (national wealth), the production (GDP) side in the current system often highlights extraction costs rather than ecological depletion, though this is changing with updated international standards (2025 SNA)"

Google AI summary ends ---------------------

A methodology document about the Canadian System of Environmental-Economic Accounts - Ecosystem Accounts 
can be found here, in HTML format:
https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=5331
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/16-509-x/16-509-x2016001-eng.htm
​
from which:
"Natural resource asset accounts measure stocks of natural resource assets (oil, natural gas, minerals, timber and land) and the annual changes in these assets due to natural processes and human activity. These accounts, which are recorded using both physical and monetary units, form the basis of the estimates of Canada's natural resource wealth that are integrated into the Canadian [core] national balance sheet accounts".

There are other types of natural capital currently excluded from the core accounts but included in satellite accounts.  From the same source:

"Ecosystem accounts are a structured compilation of information on different types of ecosystem assets that include, for example, forests, wetlands, urban and coastal areas. These assets generate flows of ecosystem services. Ecosystem accounts present information on the extent and condition of ecosystems, as well as on the flows of ecosystem services from which society benefits. Ecosystem assets and their flows of services can be measured in both physical and monetary terms.  Statistics Canada is developing ecosystem accounts that will follow the principles of the United Nations System of Environmental-Economic Accounts - Ecosystems Accounts. This statistical framework was adopted in 2021 as an international statistical standard. Work to date in this area is summarized in recent editions of the report Human Activity and the Environment, and is the focus of new efforts as part of the development of the Census of the Environment.
Ecosystem accounts can also include thematic accounts on several topics, such as urban and ocean areas, biodiversity, carbon and protected areas. Components of these accounts are in development."

AI Summary -------------------------

"Certain components of ecosystem accounts are included in Canada's broader system of environmental-economic accounts, which are designed to link with, though not entirely replace, the core System of National Accounts (SNA). 

While ecosystem services and non-market ecological functions (like carbon sequestration) are not fully integrated into the core calculation of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Statistics Canada is incorporating ecosystem accounting—specifically through the Census of Environment—into its national statistical framework."

AI Summary ends ------------------

I think what that means is that much ecosystem accounting is currently in satellite accounts in Canada's National Accounts, not in its core accounts.  The Natural Capital that is in the core accounts comprises Natural Resource accounts, ie oil, natural gas, minerals, timber and land.  

That is clearly a very incomplete list of Natural Capital.

Canada is still developing its approach to Natural Capital.  As stated above "Components of these [ecosystem] accounts are in development".

Also, from:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/16-509-x/2016001/1689-eng.htm

"Statistics Canada does not yet produce a full set of ecosystem services flow accounts. Selected data on ecosystem services in recent issues of the report Human Activity and the Environment, such as “Accounting for ecosystems in Canada.” In addition, new data on ecosystem services and beneficiaries will be developed on an ongoing basis as part of the development of the Census of Environment. For example, data on resource-based communities provides insights into beneficiaries of ecosystem provisioning services."

The excerpt and list of resources below is from:
https://www.statcan.gc.ca/hub-carrefour/quality-life-qualite-vie/environment-environnement/natural-capital-naturel-capitale-eng.htm


"The Census of Environment program aims to develop ecosystem accounts and environmental profiles across various ecosystems and watersheds. Ecosystems such as forests, alpine or prairie grasslands, tundra, lakes and rivers, ocean and coastal areas, as well as cities and towns, are an intrinsic part of Canada and a source of the nation's wealth and biodiversity. The Census of Environment is designed to track the size and health of these ecosystems and provide measures of ecosystem services. The launch of this program reflects Statistics Canada's ongoing work to improve environmental-economic accounting and provide insights on natural capital."

Environmental asset accounts: Canada's resources and how they are used

​Canadian System of Environmental-Economic Accounts - Ecosystem Accounts

​
DeepSeek 2026 on forests in Canada ----------------------------------

Canada's approach to valuing forests under the SEEA Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA) framework is both methodical and pragmatic. Statistics Canada, the national statistical office, is actively developing these accounts, but with a specific focus on physical measurement rather than placing a monetary value on every service.
Here is the breakdown of how Canada values its forests according to the official framework and related initiatives.



Key Distinction: While Canada has long valued timber as a natural resource asset (in line with the SEEA Central Framework), the newer SEEA EA approach is broader. It includes non-market services like carbon sequestration, flood control, and recreation, but officially reports these primarily in physical units (e.g., tonnes of carbon stored, cubic metres of water filtered) rather than dollars


Monetary Valuation: Happening at Sub-National Levels
Although the federal government is cautious about official monetary valuation, municipalities and other organizations are actively putting dollar figures on forests to inform local decisions. These efforts show how valuation works in practice.
In Rossland, B.C.
  • Forest Valued For: Erosion reduction, flood mitigation, recreation.
  • Annual Service Value: $26 million (for forested areas).
In Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops
  • Forest Valued For: Carbon storage, air pollution removal, stormwater management, energy savings, aesthetics.
  • Total Appraisal Value: $34.3 million (for 1,806 trees).
In Gibsons, B.C.
  • Wetland Valued For: Stormwater storage.
  • Service Value: Up to $4 million in avoided infrastructure costs.
These examples use methods like replacement cost (what would it cost to build a filtration plant to replace the forest's water purification?) and defensive expenditure (how much is saved in disaster costs?).


📊 The Methods Behind the ValuesThe specific methods used in these Canadian case studies align with the SEEA EA's guidance for monetary valuation:
  • Carbon Storage/Sequestration: Monetized at CAD 170 per tonne of CO₂ equivalent, aligning with the federal carbon pricing benchmark.
  • Air Pollution Removal: Calculated based on the estimated cost of health impacts avoided (e.g., CAD $7.30 per kg of pollutant removed).
  • Stormwater Management: Valued using the avoided cost of building and maintaining grey infrastructure (pipes and treatment plants).
  • Timber & Non-Timber Products: Valued using market prices for products like wood and maple syrup, which is standard in the SEEA CF and extended in the EA.


🤔 The Big Challenge: Accounting StandardsA significant barrier to putting forests on government balance sheets is that current public sector accounting standards (set by CPA Canada) prohibit recognizing natural assets that were not purchased. This means a forest that filters a city's water for free cannot be listed as an asset, while a water filtration plant can.
The Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) is currently reviewing this, and a new standard is expected in the coming years. This change would be a game-changer, allowing the full value of forests to be formally recognized in financial reports.

DeepSeek ends -----------------------------


Useful sources: 

Statistics Canada (2022) "Accounting for Ecosystem Change in Canada 2021"
from which the infographic below is an interesting reflection on Canada's progress towards adequate accounting for nature.  I have to emphasise that these stats are part of the satellite accounts, not core SNA accounts, in Canada.  They do not impact GDP calculations or national balance sheets for Canada compiled under SNA rules.

The infographic above begs the question "How do these asset numbers, and extraction rates, relate to Planetary Boundaries and Maximum Sustainable Yield?"

​I asked DeepSeek about this.

DeepSeek answer ----------------------------

✅ Areas of Strength

The data suggests Canada is operating within the boundaries of sustainable management for its forests and water. The 1% average annual harvest or burn rate, spread across a rotation cycle, is generally considered a sustainable forest management practice. Similarly, Canada's renewable freshwater systems exhibit low to moderate overall stress levels.

⚠️ Challenges and Concerns

​However, a closer look reveals several areas of concern.
  • Marine Fisheries: A significant gap exists between reported harvest volumes and MSY. Crucially, we don't have enough information to determine if the 784,000 tonnes harvested is sustainable, as the status of 15% of major stocks remains unknown.
  • Planetary Boundaries: Canada is not exceeding planetary boundaries solely – or even mainly – because of resource extraction (e.g., mining, fossil fuels). Instead, anthropogenic climate change is physically expanding the agricultural frontier northward, which drives large‑scale land‑use change (conversion of natural ecosystems). When these newly arable lands are farmed using unsustainable agricultural methods (e.g., intensive monoculture, synthetic fertilizers, heavy irrigation), they push several planetary boundaries past their safe limits – often more pervasively than extraction does.
  • Critical Gaps: A major gap is the lack of data on biodiversity loss, a core planetary boundary where Canada likely faces exceedances. Additionally, the infographic aggregates data at a national level, which can mask significant local or regional environmental stress.

​
🎯 What the Infographic Tells Us

Ultimately, the infographic is a measurement tool—a foundational step. By applying the lenses of Planetary Boundaries and MSY to its data, you've transformed numbers into a powerful diagnostic of Canada's environmental performance. This exercise highlights the strengths of national accounting while revealing critical data gaps that must be addressed to fully understand our impact on the planet.
This analysis shows how powerful these frameworks can be for understanding sustainability.

DeepSeek ends -----------------------




​