What can be done?
3 Environmental conditions expressed in monetary variables implicitly give the impression
that they are easily comparable with other mon- etary variables, such as yields of economic in-
vestments. However,
due to
the fictitious
character of monetized environmental variables, such comparisons necessarily lead to serious mis-
understandings. 4 Finally, a monetization of variables and
the consequent concentration on only a few ag- gregates results in such a drastic reduction of
the analytical potential of the accounting system that it cannot possibly be of use for policy-mak-
ing see also Lintott, 1996.
The advocates of monetization of environmen- tal variables argue that in present-day society
only monetary terms attract sufficient attention: ‘‘Information in physical units is scarcely ab-
sorbed in economic policy and literature. As we are living in a monetary society, it seems as if
only monetary terms play a role in economic decision making with respect to our environmen-
tal problems. Politicians can only deal with monetary numbers…’’ Richter, 1991, p. 9.
These considerations point directly to the fun- damental problem of SEEA. SEEA is a politi-
cally important
accounting system,
focusing international attention on the necessity to take
into consideration environmental damages as well as to maintain environmental quality. Such
a politically motivated system is invariably a compromise between differing opinions and rec-
ommendations. In addition, the system is ex- pected to allow acceptable entries for countries
with different quality levels of national statistics.
These merits
of SEEA
are undisputed.
Nonetheless, criticism of an important account- ing system, propagating the valuable idea of en-
vironmental protection, is justifiable if, from a scientific point of view, the method chosen
seems to be misleading or even dangerous. The argument that it is better to have a problematic
system with the right intention than to have no system at all, is just as unacceptable as saying
that it is better to have wrong data than no data.
5. What can be done?
The critical aspect of SEEA is the causal link between the sources of the diverse pollutants
and their effects on ecosystems. The problem ar- eas described in Sections 2 and 3 of this paper
concentrate on this point. The part of the ac- counting system that deals with pollutants re-
quires fundamentally different aggregation levels than the part that documents environmental
damages. Knowledge of functional connections between the two aspects is largely missing and
has therefore to be intensively supplemented by model approaches.
For SEEA this means that one should re- nounce integration of the two aspects and con-
centrate instead on the two following aims: 1 development of a classification for a sys-
tematic description of the anthropogenic alter- ations of environmental factors Environmental
Pollution Load Balance EPLB; 2 compilation of a variety of coordinated
indicators which, at widely differing aggregation levels and with a wide range of methods and
scales, would help to observe changes in envi- ronmental quality over time within at least a
rough framework environmental status report ESR
4
. Within the framework of the Environmental
Pollution Load Balance, changes in environmen- tal factors caused by human activities should be
systematically depicted. This can serve as a basis for appropriate links with economic variables
for example in the form of linkage approaches. At first sight this seems to be a fairly simple
task. But a vast new territory in economic statis- tics emerges if the following points are consid-
ered.
A functional
categorization must
be developed for different types of pollution loads.
The categorization must encompass the polluting activities of production and consumption sec-
tions. Current categorization approaches catego-
4
Such a type of accounting system is mentioned in the SEEA handbook as a second step after an improvement of
‘basic environment statistics’. However, according to figure II it does not belong to the core of SEEA United Nations, 1993,
pp. 22 and 27.
rization of economic activities must be reexam- ined and probably supplemented by components
such as a nomenclature of applied technologies. This will inevitably have an effect on the defini-
tion of appropriate units of observation.
Though an Environmental Pollution Load Bal- ance is not an ecological balance, the introduction
of diverse substances into the environment will always be problematic from an ecological point of
view. An accounting system which consistently connects origin and emission of such substances
with the underlying production and consumption activities, would be of great value. If the data are
available at the lowest possible level of aggrega- tion, more demanding statistical procedures, such
as panel investigations, become possible. This also represents a necessary first step for later integra-
tion with the Environmental Status Report.
It is imperative that an Environmental Pollu- tion Load Balance be supplemented by a strongly
disaggregated Environmental Status Report. At the same time it is especially important to conduct
thorough area inventories registration and map- ping of biotopes, extensive forest status reports,
water quality and noise mapping, etc. at regular intervals. Within the framework of such a system
most dimensions of environmental quality can be taken into consideration. The point of intersection
with Environmental Pollution Load Balance would be simply the same classification for pollu-
tion load factors, as far as they appear in the Environmental Status Report.
The multi-dimensionality of an Environmental Status Report entails a series of disadvantages as
well. Especially when comparing two time periods there is no way of detecting whether ‘total envi-
ronmental quality’ has improved or deteriorated. This complicates an overall evaluation of policy.
But as measures easily match up to single indica- tors this is not a serious disadvantage, especially if
one considers that a ‘total environmental quality’ is logically questionable anyway.
On the other hand a multi-dimensional system of indicators promotes awareness that the envi-
ronment is a differentiated, many-faceted system. From an ecological point of view such a differen-
tiated perspective is indispensable. In constructing both proposed systems one can go back to the
important preliminary works of SEEA on the condition that no conceptual integration of both
systems and no global monetary evaluation is intended.
If it is true that in a political context only aggregated monetary variables bear any weight,
the correct response does not lie in delivering more such variables but rather in providing infor-
mation on the associated problems and in a subse- quent reorientation.
Together, the two reporting systems form an efficient basis for further investigations of causal
connections. Regarding their properties, the two systems should not be seen independently but
should rather refer to one another. Although co- ordination between the two reports is desirable, it
should by no means interfere with the profes- sional accuracy of the individual reports for ex-
ample, by use of inappropriate units in order to imply a superficial compatibility.