Valuing nature's contribution: a national ecosystem accounting perspective

Nature is essential to human well‑being and economic activity. When we do not account for nature, there is a risk of unsustainable natural resource use, mismeasurement of progress and underinvestment in nature. The simplest reason for measuring and valuing nature is that as a society we cannot manage what we do not measure. The internationally adopted System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA) integrates environmental and economic information into a single, internationally recognised accounting framework that supports sustainable development, natural resource management and evidence-based policy. However, valuing ecosystem services in general remains complex and contested.

This paper provides deeper insight into Australia's National Ecosystem Accounts, going beyond the headline monetary figures to unpack what sits behind the numbers and offering additional explanation of how the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) goes about valuing ecosystem services. 

The aim of this paper is to contribute to a greater understanding of the on-going evolution of monetary techniques to estimate the contribution from ecosystems to society. It explains the distinction between ecosystem service values and broader concepts of value, outlines valuation techniques aligned with national accounting standards, and demonstrates how these techniques can produce credible, policy‑relevant economic estimates for Australia. It introduces the concept of exchange value which represents the value at which goods or services are exchanged or could be exchanged.

The concepts and principles used to value ecosystem services are drawn from the System of National Accounts (SNA) for coherence while many of the techniques draw from a rich literature in environmental economics. The SEEA EA applies a hierarchy of valuation techniques for ecosystem services, prioritising techniques that are closest to directly observable market prices. The ABS’s implementation of the SEEA EA framework to date reveals that no single valuation technique is universally applicable and some prescribed approaches are not yet feasible within current data and methodological constraints.

Best practice techniques need to be developed for each ecosystem service which the ABS has started to incorporate with new valuation techniques. In 2021–22, ecosystems including forests, savannas, grasslands and mangroves contributed $218 billion in global climate regulation values using a carbon rental technique. The value of wild‑caught fish provisioning services in 2021−22 is estimated at $463 million using quota or licence data and a rent‑revenue share technique. Australia’s water trading markets informed the value of water provisioning services from surface water estimated at $864 million (2022−23). This can be compared to the total size of the economy at $2.3 trillion in 2021–22 (ABS 2025).

The ABS will continue to test and refine these techniques through ongoing experimental work, with a focus on developing fit-for-purpose methods that support robust and meaningful estimates of ecosystem service values. 

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) is one of the early contributors and adopters of environmental-economic accounting and has published accounts for water, energy, waste, land, fish, and environmental taxes as well as numerous experimental accounts. Environmental-economic accounting combines environmental and economic information to show how the economy depends on and affects the environment, including changes in natural assets and the benefits they provide to people. 

In 2025, the ABS published Australia’s first National Ecosystem Accounts, which included initial estimates of the monetary value of selected ecosystem services. The most recent estimates can be found in the latest National Ecosystem Accounts. Valuing ecosystem services in the context of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA) remains experimental and contestable even as the ABS is actively testing and extending valuation techniques across a range of ecosystems. There is complexity and uncertainty around which values should be used and what they are intended to represent. 

Nonetheless, a key benefit of the SEEA EA is that it provides a standardised and coherent approach to measuring environmental data and evaluating natural capital. This includes the use of common metrics that foster a shared understanding, enhance collaboration, enable (sub)national and global comparisons, and reduce fragmentation, allowing stakeholders to speak a common language. 

The SEEA EA presents internationally recognised statistical principles and recommendations for the valuation of ecosystem services and assets although these have not yet achieved the status of statistical standard. The framework does not provide any prescription or recommendation on which valuation techniques should be applied for different ecosystem services. This has contributed to variation in how valuation techniques are applied, resulting in monetary estimates that are not always directly comparable and, at times, reflect differing interpretations of environmental value.

This paper will:

• highlight the conceptual underpinning of exchange value, the concept that guides monetary valuation of ecosystem services;
• clarify and communicate the scope of ecosystem services and their values as measured in the SEEA EA framework, and address common misconceptions and challenges;
• outline a range of valuation techniques that can be considered for measuring ecosystem services within the SEEA EA framework; and
• provide illustrative examples of how the ABS has been experimenting with these techniques in practice.

Many communities and industries rely directly on nature for their well-being and livelihoods. We rely on nature for our food, clean water and daily needs and as a source of materials for housing and energy to keep us warm. Ecosystems such as mangroves protect coastal communities from storms and floods. Our natural landscapes are also places of recreation and cultural significance. 

Yet, much of nature remains invisible to us (Dasgupta 2025). Until recently it rarely appeared directly in national accounts or company/government balance sheets. When we do not account for nature, there is a risk of unsustainable natural resource use, mismeasurement of progress and underinvestment in nature.

Policies often require detailed economic, monetary or fiscal numbers to enable decision makers to make informed decisions. Consequently, a key rationale for incorporating monetary values in an accounting framework is that it can allow the benefits and trade-offs of economic, environmental and social policies to be seen by decision makers. But the simplest reason for measuring and valuing nature is that as a society we cannot manage what we do not measure.

Monetary valuation is not intended to “price nature” comprehensively but to estimate the economic contribution of selected ecosystem services as one input to decision-making, recognising that many ethical, cultural, ecological, and non-market values remain outside its scope. The SEEA EA recognises that there are multiple value perspectives beyond ecosystem service valuation such as non-use and indirect values (SEEA EA 2024, para 2.4.3).

Environmental economics has a long-standing history in valuing nature, tracing back to classical and welfare economics. The field evolved through the twentieth century, particularly with the rise of ecological economics and the concept of natural capital, to more explicitly incorporate the environment into economic analysis. This evolution culminated in the ecosystem services framework, which emphasises the diverse contributions of ecosystems to human well-being, as synthesised in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Subsequent initiatives such as The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB 2010) further advanced this agenda by promoting the integration of ecosystem service values into economic and policy decision-making, helping to make nature’s benefits more visible within formal economic systems.

Statisticians worldwide are grappling with the question of how to quantify society’s dependence on nature. Many ecosystems such as water catchments, forests, and marine environments support multiple uses, including drinking water supply, irrigation, hydroelectricity, wildlife habitat, provision of food and raw materials, medicines, and spaces for cultural and recreational activities.

Contributions to the economy that are captured through market transactions, such as the value of food (fish) and materials (timber), have well-established prices. However, other ecosystem contributions, such as the clean air released by forests or the nursery services provided by coral reefs and mangroves, are much more difficult to measure and value. These benefits are often not readily captured in standard economic statistics or market transactions and therefore fall outside the scope of national accounts. There is often limited availability of economic data at regional or local levels, which contrasts with the more comprehensive data available on flora and fauna. In addition, statisticians face a geographic challenge, as human-defined administrative boundaries, such as postcodes, electorates, states and countries, rarely align neatly with ecosystem boundaries, making the integration of ecological and economic information more complex.

Estimating indirect benefits can be particularly complex. For example, mangroves support fisheries by providing habitats for juvenile fish, but quantifying these contributions typically requires detailed, site-specific studies.

Fully appreciating the value of ecosystems requires an appreciation for their countless dimensions. Consider the many and varied benefits that trees provide to flora, fauna, people and the economy (Figure 1). The diversity of ecosystems, and different views of what constitutes value leads to contestability, confusion and misunderstanding. Our ecosystems are imbued with millions of species of flora and fauna many of which exhibit intricate relationships. Our relationship with nature is multifaceted and, at times, conflicted.

Many aspects of nature cannot be easily expressed in monetary terms − such as those that hold cultural significance, individual experiences, and the intrinsic value of species. 

Nor do many of nature’s benefits show up directly in markets, for example, trees providing shade and shelter or improved air quality. These hidden or non‑market benefits are harder to measure because they have no price tag, but they are essential for understanding their value to people and the economy. Valuation techniques, such as hedonic pricing, can be applied to estimate the value of benefits that are not directly reflected in market transactions, including services like the shade provided by trees and improvements in air quality.

Monetary valuation has inherent limitations because economic considerations are only part of a broader set of aspects that affect decision making. Many ethical, cultural, and ecological considerations come to bear in considerations about protection of nature that lie outside the scope of economic analysis. Even within economics, valuation can capture only a narrow subset of nature’s contributions. Rather than ‘pricing nature,’ these techniques estimate the economic value of specific ecosystem services that allows aggregation in a way that may not be possible at the physical level.

Exchange value, the concept used by economic statisticians, is defined as: “the values at which goods, services, labour or assets are in fact exchanged or else could be exchanged for cash” (SNA 2025, para. 4.131, A1.54). 

Exchange values in the national accounts are typically measured using actual transaction data. If there are no market transactions, value is estimated using several recommended valuation techniques.

In the context of ecosystem services, exchange value can be estimated by “what willing purchasers are prepared to pay to acquire goods, services, or assets from willing sellers” (SEEA EA 2024 para 8.14; SNA 2025 para 4.132). 

To ensure consistency and credibility in ecosystem accounting, the ABS aligns its valuation techniques with the principles underlying the SNA as per the SEEA EA. From an accounting perspective, this consistency strengthens the overall framework and supports coherent, transparent decision-making.

Early implementation of the SEEA EA has revealed that not all valuation techniques used in the SNA and the broader environmental economics literature are appropriate for use in the SEEA EA framework as many were developed with a different purpose in mind. The approach to valuing ecosystems in the SEEA EA is one within a broader spectrum of values that relate to ecosystem services and the benefits we directly receive from it. Figure 2 highlights the values relevant in considering ecosystem services. 

Exchange value can be captured in either the production boundary (the SNA) or its extension to capture ecosystem services. The SNA does not include welfare values as it focuses on the current exchange value of goods and services in monetary terms because consumer surplus cannot be exchanged or revealed. Exchange values do not equate to welfare values as the latter includes consumer surplus – the value a consumer receives from consuming a good or service over and above what they pay. Monetary estimation of intrinsic value is also excluded in the SEEA EA because it is independent of human use or benefit.

Source: Schenau et al. (2022)

It may be difficult to isolate the ecosystem service from the human activity as may be the case with agriculture. A careful assessment of extended production boundary is critical to maintaining the integrity of the accounting system and ensuring clarity in how ecosystem services are measured and valued separate to those goods and services within the economy that rely on it.

By extending the production boundary, the SEEA EA framework brings ecosystem services into view, highlighting the contributions from ecosystem assets, like fish biomass provisioning, carbon sequestration, pollination and water filtration, that support both production and human well‑being. The aquatic ecosystem’s role in supporting wild fish populations can be valued under the SEEA EA, as it falls within the extended production boundary. Critically, the SEEA EA helps reveal how aquatic ecosystem assets underpin the value of fisheries and its contribution to the economy.

In the SNA, there are two distinct measures of output. Gross domestic product (GDP) measures the value added of all goods and services produced in a country over a period. It is the most widely known measure of an economy’s production. Industry gross value added (IGVA) is the value an industry adds when it produces goods and services. Another term that is widely used outside of the SNA is gross value product (GVP), which is the total value an industry produces. The key distinction between IGVA and GVP is that the former deducts the cost of inputs used in production.

The reason this distinction matters is because there is often confusion between different measures of economic output and the ecosystem service value as defined in the SEEA EA framework. This can arise when economic activity is closely intertwined with the ecosystems it depends on, as is the case with agriculture and certain tourism activities. For instance, the ecosystem service value of catching a wild fish is captured at the point of catch but excludes the effort required to catch the fish or the retail activities in its sale to households (Figure 3). These activities are captured by industry output and gross domestic product and strictly fall within the SNA production boundary.

Some studies (e.g. Thompson et al. 2025) have suggested that the agricultural industry’s output (i.e. GVP) reflects the ecosystem service value of provisioning services. However, the GVP estimate of the agricultural sector would also include estimates of other inputs such as labour, capital and energy. In the case of provisioning services, such as timber and fish, the ecosystem service value contributes to the GVP estimate. 

As a result, there is a risk of misattributing measures of economic activity to ecosystems. This conflation can lead to overestimating the contribution of ecosystems by including values derived from economic activity. 

Not all ecosystem services are so readily reflected in industry output in the way that fish and timber harvests are. Take for instance, the value of stored carbon under global climate regulation services. The value of stored carbon is not directly captured in the SNA as there is no market output or equivalent industry entry. 

References to GDP can be useful where we seek to understand our reliance on nature by identifying those industries that are highly dependent on nature. For instance, agricultural and tourism activities are often closely intertwined with nature. The Australian Conservation Foundation (2022) found that in 2018−19 around half of Australia’s economy ($896 billion) had a moderate to extremely high direct dependence on nature. Similarly, the World Economic Forum (2020) found that more than half of the world’s total GDP or $44 trillion of economic value was moderately or highly dependent on nature and its services.

Monetary valuation in the SEEA EA covers the valuation of ecosystem assets and their services – provided in a reference list (SEEA EA 2024, table 6.3). The SEEA EA framework identifies three types of ecosystem services that provide benefits humans receive from ecosystems: 

1. provisioning services: related to the supply of food, fibre, fuel and water to the economy (a);
2. regulating services: related to filtration, purification, regulation and maintenance activities for air, water, soil, habitat and climate; and 
3. cultural services: experiential and non-material services reflecting the perceived or realised qualities of ecosystems whose existence and functioning enable individuals to derive a variety of cultural benefits.

(a) More specifically the production boundary of the System of National Accounts.

Because of its scope, monetary values in the SEEA EA framework are targeted to meet the purpose of the accounts. Excluded are the monetary estimates of non-use and welfare values that people might attribute to ecosystems, such as the intrinsic value of a woodland or the value of a well-functioning ecosystem that provides benefits to other ecosystems. The SEEA EA recognises the importance of these values to record information that can be directly associated with non-use values (SEEA EA para 6.73).

The focus in SEEA EA is on identifying the contribution from ecosystem services to society, i.e. the input of ecosystem services and not the wider social benefit or outcome received from the service (SEEA EA para 8.24). The societal benefits derived from ecosystem services − such as the reduced risks associated with lower levels of carbon emissions are not considered here. Instead, the focus is on quantifying the value of carbon sequestration or the retention of carbon that contribute to mitigating climate change.

This is consistent with the approach taken in the national accounts for non‑market output, where the cost of inputs is used to value production, rather than the value of the outcome or benefit received by the final consumer. For example, in the SNA, health outcomes themselves are not measured; instead, non‑market health services are valued using inputs (e.g. doctors’ salaries and hospital infrastructure costs).

For some provisioning services it may be straightforward to delineate the boundary between an ecosystem service and the output (i.e. benefit) recorded within the production boundary as measured by the national accounts. Much of the water that we extract for irrigating crops or for use in industry or household consumption comes from surface water catchments such as lakes, rivers and streams. Water contained within these bodies fall within freshwater ecosystems. The point at which the water is extracted from these bodies delineates the boundary between ecosystems and the economy (i.e. the production boundary), at least for the purposes of the accounts. At the point of extraction economic activities affect the condition, access and distribution of water, such as through the installation of infrastructure. After extraction, these activities are captured in the national accounts.

Logic chains are helpful in illustrating, for each ecosystem service, the connections between the ecosystem asset and the user of the service, by mapping out the physical flows. This helps clarify the pathways through which ecosystems support human well-being, identifies which values to focus on and helps distinguish between the types of values that relate to the ecosystem or its service and those values that arise as a consequence from the use of those services but that occur in the economy (sometimes referred to as the final benefit). 

Figure 4 shows the application of a logic chain to global climate regulation services. These services provide for the storage of carbon in ecosystems such as woodlands or wetlands and prevents the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. The logic chain shows the flows from ecosystem asset, such as woodlands, to the final user of the service.

Source: Adapted from Hein et al. (2019)

Intermediate benefits, while not presented in the SEEA EA framework, link the ecosystem service with flow-on or downstream benefits. In this case, an intermediate benefit is the reduction in atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations, which helps mitigate climate change and its associated risks. The final benefits include reduced exposure to climate-related hazards, leading to improved public health and decreased economic disruption. In the SEEA EA these benefits are collectively consumed by governments on behalf of society while individuals, households, and businesses may benefit directly as well.

The logic chain underscores why some valuation techniques may not be appropriate within the SEEA EA framework. For example, the social cost of carbon (SCC) measures the economic value of damage caused by carbon emissions. Under some formulations, these measures will focus solely on outcomes, such as avoided damages or health impacts (the right-hand side of Figure 4) rather than on the contribution from ecosystems. In this case, the SCC is an economic estimate that can be useful in quantifying a range of climate related impacts but does not link to any one ecosystem or ecosystem service flow, which is the focus of the SEEA EA framework.

Identifying where the boundary lies between ecosystems and the economy can be challenging because certain industries, such as agriculture, are highly dependent on and are closely intertwined with ecosystems. One example is pollination services (Figure 5), where the boundary between ecosystem service and production is less clear. Bees are widely recognised for their essential role in pollination, a source of honey and their reliance on natural ecological processes.

From a SEEA EA perspective, only pollination services derived from natural ecosystems, are recognised as ecosystem services. Beekeeping tends to be geared towards cultivated crops and is a form of animal husbandry which is strictly within the production boundary and as such is already captured in the SNA framework.

Pollination provided by wild pollinators from surrounding natural areas (e.g. nearby forests) contributes to the value of ecosystem services within the extended production boundary of the SEEA EA. Accurately valuing pollination services would require knowing precisely where bees obtain their nectar and pollen. While this level of detail may be feasible for individual apiarists, it becomes significantly more challenging at a national scale, unless company-level data is available (Bergamini et al. 2025).

Having established what to value, we must identify how to value ecosystem services. SEEA EA chapters 8-10 introduce valuation techniques with the intention of estimating monetary values consistent with the concept of exchange value. 

There is a hierarchy of five techniques presented in the SEEA EA to value ecosystem services with preference for techniques closest to directly observable prices (Figure 6). The preference for market prices is consistent with the national accounts, with market prices being the preferred measure of exchange value. However, there are not many markets for ecosystem services such that estimated values are often required. These rely on modelling and assumptions, which may introduce uncertainty and may be contestable.

According to the SEEA EA, the preferred way to estimate the value of ecosystem services is by looking at actual prices paid or transactions (directly observed values or market prices). Market prices are preferable because they reflect actual behaviour, offering greater confidence in the estimates. For example, when water is extracted from a lake, river, or catchment, the value of the water provisioning service provided by the river or lake can be represented by the price of water trading rights in Australia. This kind of real-world transaction provides a tangible measure of the contribution of ecosystems to the economy and can be recorded accordingly in environmental-economic accounts.

Source: Based on SEEA EA (2024)

The second way to estimate the value of ecosystem services is by using prices from similar markets. When there is no direct market price for a service provided by an ecosystem, we can sometimes use prices from similar markets to estimate its value. For example, in the national accounts (SNA), the value of living in your own home (the imputed rent) is estimated by using the rent paid for comparable homes. This same idea can be used for ecosystem services. If ecosystem services like grazed biomass or water supply is not bought or sold directly, we can still estimate its value by using prices from similar goods or services that are traded in the market.

The third way to estimate the value of ecosystem services is by looking at market transactions where the value of the service is already included in the price. This includes techniques like land rent, hedonic pricing and production function techniques. A land rental technique was used as an illustration to estimate the ecosystem service value of crop provisioning for sugarcane farming in the Great Barrier Reef Ecosystem Accounts.

The fourth way to estimate the value of ecosystem services is by looking at how much people spend on related goods and services. For example, people might spend money to avoid the negative effects of environmental damage − like buying water filters or air purifiers. These costs can show how much people value the benefits that ecosystems provide. This is known as the 'averting behaviour' or 'defensive expenditure' method. Another example is using the 'travel cost method’ to value park services, by looking at how much people spend to visit them.

The final way to estimate the value of ecosystem services is by using expected or simulated costs. This means, for instance, estimating how much it would cost to replace an ecosystem or service that is no longer provided. These techniques are used when there are no actual market prices or spending data available, but we can make estimates using models or assumptions. Two common examples are the ‘replacement cost method’ and the ‘avoided cost method’.

Early experience in valuing Australia’s ecosystem services has revealed that not all the valuation techniques prescribed in the SEEA EA guidelines are fit for purpose for specific ecosystem services or contexts. Thus, more tailored techniques will be required that better reflect the exchange value of ecosystem services. This arises, because some techniques result in unrepresentative values (including negative values), are not consistent with the concept of exchange value or suffer from lack of data such that proxy measures fall short. Additional experimentation is currently underway to gain insights into the limitations surrounding some techniques and which provide best practice in valuing ecosystem services. 

The availability of multiple values based on the wide choice of valuation techniques that are available in the SEEA EA guidelines may open the door for interested parties to explore different values. Not all are conceptually equivalent. For instance, Chen et al. (2025) report four different SEEA EA prescribed ways for valuing water related ecosystem services which produce vastly different estimates, including negative ecosystem service values. The State of Victoria (2023) uses a social cost of carbon, replacement cost and market prices to derive carbon sequestration and retention values. The report incorporates global social cost of carbon estimates of between $75 to $178 per tonne of CO2 and market prices/replacement costs of $16 to $74 per tonne of CO2. 

Key challenges in measuring the value of ecosystem services include:

• Uncertainty related to the complexities of ecosystem functions and processes that inhibit isolating the ecosystem services that are related to human activity;
• Ecosystems provide multiple services that may be challenging to unpack and separately value. For instance, trees can be a source of food, timber, shelter, psychological well-being, habitat for pollinators etc;
• Ecosystem provisioning services, such as water supply, may be undervalued because it may be difficult to estimate how much of the value of a good may be attributed to the ecosystem and how much can be attributed to subsequent economic activity (such as irrigation and farming); and
• Data availability and quality: relevant, consistent and spatially detailed economic data on ecosystems and their services are often limited, fragmented or unavailable, making it difficult to measure, monitor and reliably value ecosystem contributions over time.

The experience to date has revealed that the experimental nature of valuation under the SEEA EA framework inevitably means that certain valuation techniques prescribed under SEEA EA produce inconsistent results. As such, new techniques need to be developed to better estimate the ecosystem contribution as techniques and data availability evolve. As a start, Australia’s National Ecosystem Accounts incorporate two techniques that are not explicitly mentioned in the SEEA EA framework though they fall within the hierarchy of techniques: (a) the carbon rental technique and (b) the rent revenue share technique to estimates the ecosystem service value from wild-caught fisheries.

The SEEA framework recognises climate regulation services whereby ecosystems, such as forests, contribute to reducing and managing concentrations of GHG in the atmosphere through the retention (storage) of carbon in ecosystems (SEEA EA 2024, table 6.3). 

The valuation should reflect the service that resides in safeguarding the potential release of stored carbon. A carbon rental technique, based on Edens (2023) annuity technique provides an estimate of the rental value that owners of ecosystems, such as forests, should be able to accrue for maintaining a stock of carbon. 

This technique links the global climate regulation services value to a market price of carbon sequestration, which in Australia’s case comprises the Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCU). In line with SNA principles, ACCUs are the presiding institutional arrangement during the period that determine the value of carbon. ACCUs also have the added advantage that it links with a market-based technique in the form of auction prices.

Australia’s National Ecosystem Accounts 2026 valued climate regulation services at $218 billion in 2021−22 from 34.6 million kilotonnes of carbon stored by selected ecosystems (ABS 2026).

In Australia, fisheries are managed through licences and quotas: licences grant the right to fish under specified conditions, while quotas, often as transferable shares of the total allowable catch (TAC), limit how much can be harvested. These quota shares can be traded or leased, creating a market-based system that controls catch levels while supporting sustainability and economic efficiency across Commonwealth-managed and State-managed fisheries.

In individual transferable quota (ITQ) fisheries, quota lease prices show the annual resource rent from an extra unit of catch, while quota sales prices represent the discounted value of expected future rents and therefore the value of the ecosystem asset (Newell et al. 2005; Pascoe et al. 2019; Gunnlaugsson et al. 2020). In non‑quota, input‑controlled fisheries, licence values similarly reflect the discounted future rents from operating in the fishery overall (Flaaten et al. 1995). These techniques rely on cases where the price of the ecosystem service can be directly observed.

The monetary value of wild-caught fish provisioning services reflects quota or licence data for single species fisheries where available or a rent revenue share of gross value product for multi-species fisheries to distribute a quota fee across different wild fish catch. Pascoe and Scheufele (2025) devised a rent revenue share technique for estimating the exchange value from wild-caught fisheries which can be applied to multi-species fisheries. This technique was used to estimate the ecosystem service value of fisheries in Australia’s National Ecosystem Accounts. 

In the latest National Ecosystem Accounts, the estimated ecosystem service value of Commonwealth-managed and State-managed fisheries wild-caught fish was $463 million from 162 kilotonnes of catch in 2021−22 (ABS 2026). In the same year, the output of Commonwealth-managed and State-managed fisheries wild-caught fish was valued at $1.5 billion of Gross Value Product (GVP), which includes costs associated with harvesting fish (Tuynman et al. 2025). When those fish are processed, packaged, and sold in supermarkets the added value of this economic activity contributes to GDP, including the original ecosystem service value.

Perceptions of value in relation to nature will be influenced by many factors. These include our cultural background, our understanding of what we mean by nature and the kind of values that we attach meaning to.

Statisticians around the world are grappling with these aspects, drawing on the experience of the national accounts and a large literature on environmental economics to meet the analytical purpose of the SEEA EA. In doing so we are guided by the need for valuation techniques to be compatible with the national accounts framework as well as ensuring that the values are based on robust statistical measurement and conceptual underpinnings (Brown et al. 2021).

The SEEA EA sets international standards for environmental measurement and provides guidance on how best to value nature’s contribution. By using common concepts, they create a shared language that strengthens collaboration, enables comparison, and reduces fragmentation.

The work to date has revealed early insights on the evolution of valuing ecosystem services:

• There is considerable confusion on what values to focus on and what they represent, reflecting the wide range of ways people define and measure nature’s contribution;
• SEEA EA is intentionally narrow in scope, focusing on the contribution from ecosystems to society whilst drawing on national accounting principles to keep valuations consistent. This does not detract from the many other values that are imbued in nature;
• The SEEA EA also reminds us to link benefits back to the ecosystems that provide them, by looking at what ecosystems supply and how those services are used;
• As more ecosystem accounts are implemented, clearer guidance and tailored valuation techniques will emerge that will ensure results are more consistent and representative; and
• Detailed and reliable financial data on ecosystem services is often incomplete, inconsistent, or based on assumptions, which affects the quality and robustness of valuation estimates and broader application of valuation techniques.

Additional experimentation is currently underway to gain insights into the limitations surrounding some techniques and which provide best practice in valuing ecosystem services. 

Societies are reliant on nature – often in ways that may not be obvious. The SEEA EA provides a framework on how we can start measuring and valuing that reliance. That is important if we are to better understand our dependencies, risks and opportunities in managing that relationship, not just for the present but for future generations as well.