This study conducts a systematic theoretical-bibliographic review of the fundamental barriers and conceptual problems confronting the integration of Natural Capital Accounting (NCA) into the System of National Accounts (SNA). It critically examines why conventional macroeconomic indicators fail to capture ecological degradation under conditions of non-linear dynamics, and proposes institutional solutions grounded in the existing literature. A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature from Scopus and Web of Science was conducted, complemented by analysis of key policy documents (SEEA CF, SEEA EA, Dasgupta Review). Sources were selected using targeted keyword combinations and snowball searching. The review synthesizes foundational and contemporary works on national accounting, natural capital measurement, non-linear ecological dynamics, and institutional reform. No primary statistical datasets were employed. Three categories of fundamental barriers are identified: measurement barriers, conceptual barriers, and institutional barriers. The paper demonstrates that ecological tipping points, regime shifts, and threshold effects render the SNA's implicit linearity assumption untenable. A five-tier conceptual framework linking natural capital stocks through non-linear degradation dynamics to adjusted macroeconomic indicators and sustainability indices is developed.

Natural capital accounting, System of National Accounts, non-linear dynamics

Bagstad, K. J., et al. (2021). Lessons learned from development of natural capital accounts in the United States and European Union. Ecosystem Services, 52, 101359.

Comte, A., et al. (2022). Ecosystem accounting: Past scientific developments and future challenges. Ecosystem Services, 58, 101486.

Costanza, R., et al. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253-260.

Costanza, R., et al. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152-158.

Dasgupta, P. (2021). The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review. HM Treasury, London.

Folke, C., et al. (2004). Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35, 557-581.

Hamilton, K., & Clemens, M. (1999). Genuine savings rates in developing countries. World Bank Economic Review, 13(2), 333-356.

Hein, L., et al. (2015). Defining ecosystem assets for natural capital accounting. PLoS ONE, 10(11), e0142723.

Obst, C., & Alfieri, A. (2021). Beyond GDP: The SEEA Ecosystem Accounting standard. Capitals Coalition.

Ochuodho, T. O., & Alavalapati, J. R. R. (2016). Integrating natural capital into system of national accounts for policy analysis. Forest Policy and Economics, 72, 99-105.

Repetto, R., et al. (1989). Wasting Assets: Natural Resources in the National Income Accounts. World Resources Institute.

Rockstrom, J., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472-475.

Scheffer, M. (2009). Critical Transitions in Nature and Society. Princeton University Press.

Scheffer, M., et al. (2001). Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature, 413(6856), 591-596.

Scheffer, M., et al. (2009). Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Nature, 461(7260), 53-59.

Scheffer, M., et al. (2012). Anticipating critical transitions. Science, 338(6105), 344-348.

Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2009). Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. CMEPSP.

TEEB. (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature. UNEP.

United Nations et al. (2014). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012: Central Framework. United Nations.

United Nations. (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting - Ecosystem Accounting. United Nations.

World Bank. (2021). The Changing Wealth of Nations 2021: Managing Assets for the Future. World Bank.