外文文献翻译---环境会计我们现在所处的状况及我们前进的方向-学位论文.doc

杭州电子科技大学信息工程学院毕业设计（论文）外文文献翻译毕业设计（论文）题目构建我国的环境会计体系翻译（1）题目环境会计 我们现在所处的状况及我们前进的方向翻译（2）题目系财经系专 业会计学姓 名 班 级049062学 号01906225v 指导教师对外文翻译的评语： 指导教师 （签名） 年 月 日建议成绩评阅小组或评阅人对外文翻译的评语：评阅小组负责人或评阅人 （签名） 年 月 日建议成绩外文翻译考核表环境会计我们现在所处的状况及我们前进的方向by Joy E. Hecht利益增长改变国民收入核算制度以促进了解经济和环境之间的联系。在过去的二十年间，环境会计领域取得了很大的进步，它从一个比较冷僻领域努力到现在已经是一个经几十个国家测试和多方面的完善的领域。 但是，国家有可能把环境的经济作用结合到国民收入账户中，这种既不是快速的卖空，也不是种快速的过程。 自从20世纪60年代以来，这种想法已经被讨论。 尽管在这篇文章中面临重重困难和争议，但是，与日剧增的在国民收入核算制度中所产生的利益促进了我们对经济和环境直接关系的了解。为何改变？世界各国政府建立经济数据系统称为国民收入账户，它是用来计算宏观经济的指标，如国内生产总值。建立一个国家经济环境使用到这种账户是回应几个在依照由联合国规定并且在全世界广泛使用的国民核算体系中认识到的缺点， 其中一个缺点就是环境保护中的费用不能被鉴别出来。因此，有些人辩称道，所花的费用，也就是说，用来安装控制环境污染的装置随着国内生产总值的增幅， 即使开支也不是经济化地生产。这些批评者呼吁区分防御性的花费要从账户中其他部分支出。同时，虽然有些环境商品上不了市场，但是它们提供了经济价值。这种现象是令人费解的。薪材聚集在森林，肉类和鱼类聚集消费，药用植物它们都是例证， 同样的用于喝和灌溉的水，其出售价格只是反映了分配和处理基本设施的花费，而不是水本身。虽然有些国家确实把这类货物包括在其国民收入账户，但没有存在着这样做的标准惯例。当非市场货物列入账户中，他们仍然无法从那些销售的产品中区分出来。重视环境服务如森林提供的集水区保护与昆虫提供作物施肥是很困难的。虽然有些专家呼吁将它们列入环保调整账户，但是那些有经济价值和退化的服务都没有包括进。在另一方面，需要候补货物和服务来代替比如说水处理设备，用来对国民生产总值做贡献，它是有误导之嫌。还有个问题是，国民收入账户对待制成品资本的折旧和自然资本的折旧是不同的。实物资本比如说建筑物或一台机器，其折旧是按照传统的商业会计原则，但是所有自然资本的消费是计为收入的。因此，一个国家的账户中，森林资源的丰收是不能用来支撑起几年的高收入，但是也不会反映出有生产力的林业资产的破坏。虽然就如何贬值自然资本的观点众说纷纭，但他们一致认为需要这么做。哪种指示是有效的？一些支持者主张简单的标记指标，以提醒决策者环境在经济方面有着众多的角色。举例来说，传统的国内生产总值和经环境调整的国内生产总值，或传统的储蓄与所谓的正版的储蓄账户比较，发现环境因素是主要原因。上述两个指标可以提供宝贵的警告，告诫环境恶化对经济增长的冲击。然而，这样的标记在确定环境损害的来源，或找出一个政策回应上用处不是很大。基于这个原因，许多经济学家安置头等重要性不是在底线，而是放在潜在的数据用于建立环境帐户。这些数据可以帮助解决自然灾害影响带给经济增长的阻碍， 象印度尼西亚在1998年夏天发生的火灾，或如何运用环保政策来影响经济如环保税的问题。谁正在做环境会计？环境会计正在几十个国家中进行着，无论是国内还是国外的政府，统计人员和其他支持者已经在过去的数十年中开展了一些活动。有几个国家成功地在常规数据系统的建立上持续投资，并且合并到现有的统计制度和经济规划活动中。有的甚至用有限的能力来计算几个指标，或分析一个单一的部门。一些最早的研究环境会计工作是由亨利帕斯金完成，他是为美国研究账户设计的。挪威是第一批建立环境账户的国家， 它从在20世纪70年代开始收集能源，渔业，森林和矿产的数据，来用说明资源的匮乏。长期以来，挪威已经扩大了其账户，把对空气污染物的排放量纳入其中。其账户以国民经济为模型，决策者可以用来评估对于能量交替增长决策的涵义。列入这些数据也使得他们可以预见不同的经济增长模型对遵守国际公约会对污染物的排放量的影响。最近，一些资源依赖型国家对衡量他们的自然资产折旧产生了兴趣，并开始调整他们环境的国内生产总值。1989年的研究报告消耗性资产：自然资源在国民收入账户是其中一个推动力。这份报告中， 罗伯特雷佩托和他在世界资源研究所的同事们对印度尼西亚的森林，石油储量和土壤的资产进行折旧评估。一旦账户中的折旧量被校正好，印度尼西亚的国内生产总值和增长速度都将低于常规的数据。 然而所谓许多行动中的“消耗性资产”，它起者一个闸的作用，导致许多经济学家和统计学家对于过分重视绿色国内生产总值发出警告， 因为它没有告诉决策者任何关于环境问题的起因或者是解决方法。那时以来，一些发展中国家已对基础广泛的环境会计作出了长期承诺。纳米比亚从1994年着手开始资源账户的工作，解决政府是否已经能够从矿产和渔业部门得到租金，如何分配稀少的食水供应，以及草场退化影响牲畜的价值等这种问题。菲律宾在1990年起开始致力于环境账户。所采用的办法是建立一切经济投入和产出账户，包括非市场商品和服务的环境。因而菲律宾人对收集的薪材和废物处置，由空气，水，土地所提供的服务进行货币价值的估计，然后直接加入到服务消费行列中，因为它们是作为自然界的娱乐和审美的增值。然而，他们的思维方式是具争议性的，这些账户为供菲律宾政府机构和研究人员提供决策和分析所需的各种各样的数据。但是在环境会计舞台，美国没有发挥着领导者的作用。在克林顿政府时期，经济分析局对矿产部门发起了环境会计的进军，但是这个初步的尝试卷入政治争议，同时面临着矿物制品制造业的反对。然后，国会要求国家研究委员会形成一个蓝丝带小组来考虑国家应该用什么方式来做环境会计，自那时起，美国国会拨款给经济分析局，但在次之前，他们一直明确禁止经济分析局进行环境会计工作。 现在这项禁令可能被取消，不过，这些对国家研究委员会的建议是要向公众公布。如何计算？在考虑不同的方面时，环境会计有着不同的计算方法，特别是需要得到巨额的投资，客观的数据能力来比较不同种环境的影响以及各种政策的目的时它们可以适用。这里有些目前正在使用的方法：自然资源账户：它包括自然资源存储数据和由自然或人为使用造成的变化的数据。这种账户通常覆盖农业用地，渔业，森林，矿产，石油和水。在一些国家，该账户还包括这些资源的金融价值数据， 但是在尝试计算中遇到了重大的技术难题。当货物在市场中出售，这是相当容易去追踪价值的资源流动，同样地，木材和鱼类也适用。但是，计算库存地变化是比较困难地， 因为它们可能是由一方资源的自然变化或者是波动的市场价格造成的。环境商品和服务是不会被出售，因此那就是更加难以确立流动或改变库存的价值观念。不过，即使是自然的数据，也可以联系到经济的政策目的。举例来说，变动收入有时可以追溯到资源的变化，或是环境灾难对经济造成的影响。排放量核算：这是由荷兰人研发的，包括环境账户的国民核算矩阵，它是把帐户组合到一个矩阵中，其中由经济部门来确定污染物排放量。欧盟统计局是欧洲联盟中的统计支架，他帮助欧盟成员国来应用这方法，因为它是环境会计系统中的一部分。核算矩阵系统中的自然数据是用来评估不同增长策略对环境质量的影响。污染物排放量可以把数据分离开来，以了解对国内的，跨国界，或全球性的环境的影响。如果排放价值是用货币来衡量的，这些价值观念可以用来计算把避免环境退化放在首位时付出的经济代价，以及比较保护环境的成本和效益。常规国民账目的解体：有时候, 在常规账目中把数据拆开以确定具体的支出与环境有关, 例如那些防止或减轻损害的，以购买和安装保护装置,或者支付费用和补贴的花费。 随着时间的推移, 揭示这些数据使人们有可以观察环境政策变化和环境保护的费用之间的关系,以及追踪环保行业的进展。虽然这些数据有着显而易见的利益，但是有的人认为被隔离的数据可以产生误导作用。举例来说，尽管管道终端污染控制设备是很容易观察到，通过重新设计产品或流程变革而不是依赖于特别的设备，新的工厂和与日俱增的车辆正在降低它们污染物的排放量。在这种情况下，在账户上不会显现出受污染控制的花费，但在支出显现出来的情况下，环境保护方面可能会做得更加好些。非市场环境商品和服务的价值：相当多的争论存在于非市场环境商品和服务的估算价值是否应该包括那些在环境账户中。例如，一个未受污染的湖泊或风景区的景色带来的好处。一方面，这些项目的总价值是至关重要的，当该账户将用来权衡经济和环境目标。否则，该账户可能结束那些用来反映不以任何方式保护生态环境的成本。另一方面，有些人认为估价是一个建模的活动，其超越传统了会计，并且不应该直接关系到国民核算体系。他们认为估价方法是难以规范的，所以使由此产生的账户可能不具有国家之间的或经济部门内部的可比性。绿色国内生产总值：发展包括环境的国内生产总值是一个备受争议的事情。大多数人都积极参与建设环境账户使它的重要性减到最小。因为环境核算方法不规范，一个绿色国内生产总值在每个项目计算上可以有不同的意义，因此价值观在国家之间是不具有可比性。此外，虽然一个绿色国内生产总值可以提请大家注意政策问题，但是它对于如何解决这些问题没有很大用处。然而大多数的会计项目包括货币价值用这一指标来做计算，尽管它存在局限性，但是还是存在着极大的利益。在方法上达成共识如果国际上能协商一致，环境会计将得到强有力的帮助。联合国统计署已自20世纪80年代已在为此做出的努力并取得一定成果。在1993年，联合国公布将综合经济与环境会计（ SEEA）作为附件对国民核算体系进行修订。 SEEA的结构安排了一系列的备选方法，其中包括大部分在上述提到过的会计活动;使用者可选择最适合他们需要的一种。在联合国所建议的各种方法不存在公众舆论。事实上， SEEA现在正在进行由所谓的伦敦小组提出的修改，主要是由来自经济合作与发展组织国家的国民收入的会计和统计人员组成的。该小组的工作一个重要步骤将是对会计处理方法的达成一定的共识，但这一进程将是漫长：发展传统的国民核算体系用了四十年。对它的普遍使用对于朝着确保环境核算以及国民核算体系被确立为目标的努力，现在若干步骤可以被采取。首先，对现有环境账户和它们是如何促进经济和环境政策的相关信息必须自由流通。为了吸取经验教训，对于现在正在进行的工作需要加以确认和系统地回顾分析，这可为设计和执行未来的审计活动提供信息。世界自然保护联盟已着手关于绿色会计的倡议这方面努力，它和其他一些组织都呼吁类似的活动。利用万维网上可方便获取未发表的工作，虽然这将需要协调一致的努力，以取得会计报告，并寻求批准把他们装载在因特网上。第二，发展的一个以国际标准化为核心的方法将有助于大家采用环境会计的意愿。该领域的专家包括经济学家，环保人士，学者和其他人的国家统计办公室等，应采取积极主动的作用，在追踪伦敦小组的工作时坚持标准制定过程中涉及参与的国家和利害攸关者代表的一系列观点。它为科研院所以率先采取行动找出所需要的财政资源以促进更广泛的标准制定过程，并争取全方位的声音，以就方法论建立共识。最后，可能也是最重要的是，更多的国家将建设的环境账户制度化，以更大的动力达成更多相同观点。 还有，建立账户不是一朝一夕的事。其建立将需要持久的体制和财政承诺以确保投资持续时间长而足以显出成效。但有丰富经验的挪威，纳米比亚，菲律宾表明，这种承诺可以实现，它也是需要更多的国家在世界做出的承诺。Environmental AccountingWhere We Are Now, Where We Are Headingby Joy E. HechtInterest is growing in modifying national income accounting systems to promote understanding of the links between economy and environment.The field of environmental accounting has made great strides in the past two decades, moving from a rather arcane endeavor to one tested in dozens of countries and well established in a few. But the idea that nations might integrate the economic role of the environment into their income accounts is neither a quick sell nor a quick process; it has been under discussion since the 1960s. Despite the difficulties and controversies described in this article, however, interest is growing in modifying national income accounting systems to promote understanding of the links between economy and environment.Why Change?Governments around the world develop economic data systems known as national income accounts to calculate macroeconomic indicators such as gross domestic product. Building a nations economic use of the environment into such accounts is a response to several perceived flaws in the System of National Accounts (SNA), as defined by the United Nations and used internationally. One flaw in the SNA often cited is that the cost of environmental protection cannot be identified. Consequently, money spent, say, to put pollution control devices on smokestacks increases GDP, even though the expenditure is not economically productive, some argue. These critics call for differentiating “defensive” expenditures from others within the accounts. Also misleading is the fact that some environmental goods are not marketed though they provide economic value. Fuelwood gathered in forests, meat and fish gathered for consumption, and medicinal plants are examples. So are drinking and irrigation water, whose sale prices reflect the cost of distribution and treatment infrastructure, but not the water itself. While some countries do include such goods in their national income accounts, no standard practices exist for doing so. When nonmarketed goods are included in the accounts, they still cannot be distinguished from those that are marketed. Valuing environmental services such as the watershed protection that forests afford and the crop fertilization that insects provide is difficult. Though some experts call for their inclusion in environmentally adjusted accounts, typically neither the economic value nor the degradation of these services is included. On the other hand, however, the alternate goods and services needed to replace themwater treatment plants, for exampledo contribute to GDP, which can be rather misleading. Still another problem is that national income accounts treat the depreciation of manufactured capital and natural capital differently. Physical capitala building or a machine, for instanceis depreciated in accordance with conventional business accounting principles, while all consumption of natural capital is accounted for as income. Thus the accounts of a country that harvests its forests unsustainably will show high income for a few years, but will not reflect the destruction of the productive forest asset. While opinions vary on how to depreciate natural capital, they converge on the need to do so.Which Indicators Are Useful?Some proponents advocate simple “flag” indicators to alert policymakers to the broad role of the environment in the economy, for example, comparing conventionalGDP with environmentally adjusted GDP, or conventional savings with so-called “genuine” savings that account for environmental factors. Both of these indicators can provide valuable warnings of the impacts of environmental degradation on an economy. However, such flags are less useful in determining the source of environmental harm or identifying a policy response. For this reason, many economists place primary importance not on the bottom line, but on the underlying data used to build environmental accounts. These data can help answer such questions as how natural catastrophes like the fires that raged in Indonesia in the summer of 1998 may affect economic growth, or how environmental protection policies such as green taxes may affect the economy.Who Is Doing This?Environmental accounting is underway in several dozen countries, where bureaucrats, statisticians, and other proponents both foreign and domestic have initiated activities over the past few decades. Several countries have made continuous investments in building routine data systems, which are integrated into existing statistical systems and economic planning activities. Others have made more limited efforts to calculate a few indicators, or analyze a single sector. Some of the earliest research on environmental accounting was done at RFF by Henry Peskin, working on the design of accounts for the United States. One of the first countries to build environmental accounts is Norway, which began collecting data on energy sources, fisheries, forests, and minerals in the 1970s to address resource scarcity. Over time, the Norwegians have expanded their accounts to include data on air pollutant emissions. Their accounts feed into a model of the national economy, which policymakers use to assess the energy implications of alternate growth strategies. Inclusion of these data also allows them to anticipate the impacts of different growth patterns on compliance with international conventions on pollutant emissions. More recently, a number of resource-dependent countries have become interested in measuring depreciation of their natural assets and adjusting their GDPs environmentally. One impetus for their interest was the 1989 study “Wasting Assets: Natural Resources in the National Income Accounts,” in which Robert Repetto and his colleagues at the World Resources Institute estimated the depreciation of Indonesias forests, petroleum reserves, and soil assets. Once adjusted to account for that depreciation, Indonesias GDP and growth rates both sank significantly below conventional figures. While “Wasting Assets” called many to action, it also operated as a brake, leading many economists and statisticians to warn against a focus on green GDP, because it tells decisionmakers nothing about the causes or solutions for environmental problems. Since that time, several developing countries have made long-term commitments to broad-based environmental accounting. Namibia began work on resource accounts in 1994, addressing such questions as whether the government has been able to capture rents from the minerals and fisheries sectors, how to allocate scarce water supplies, and how rangeland degradation affects the value of livestock. The Philippines began work on environmental accounts in 1990. The approach used there is to build all economic inputs and outputs into the accounts, including nonmarketed goods and services of the environment. Thus Filipinos estimate monetary values for such items as gathered fuelwood and the waste disposal services provided by air, water, and land; they then add in direct consumption of such services as recreation and aesthetic appreciation of the natural world. While their methodology is controversial, these accounts have provided Philippine government agencies and researchers with a rich array of data for policymaking and analysis. The United States has not been a leader in the environmental accounting arena. At the start of the Clinton administration, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) made a foray into environmental accounting in the minerals sector, but this preliminary attempt became embroiled in political controversy and faced opposition from the minerals industry. Congress then asked the National Research Council (NRC) to form a blue ribbon panel to consider what the nation should do in the way of environmental accounting. Since then, Congressional appropriations to BEA have been accompanied by an explicit prohibition on environmental accounting work. The ban may be lifted, however, once the recommendations of the NRC study are made public.How to Account?How environmental accounting is being done varies in a number of respects, notably the magnitude of the investment required, the objectivity of the data, the ability to compare different kinds of environmental impacts, and the kinds of policy purposes to which they may be applied. Here are some of the methods currently in use. Natural Resource Accounts. These include data on stocks of natural resources and changes in them caused by either natural processes or human use. Such accounts typically cover agricultural land, fisheries, forests, minerals and petroleum, and water. In some countries, the accounts also include monetary data on the value of such resources. But attempts at valuation raise significant technical difficulties. It is fairly easy to track the value of resource flows when the goods are sold in markets, as in the case of timber and fish. Valuingchanges in the stocks, however, is more difficult because they could be the result either of a physical change in the resource or of a fluctuation in market price. For environmental goods and services that are not sold, it is that much harder to establish the value either of the flow or of a change in stock. However, even physical data can be linked to the economy for policy purposes. For example, changes in income can sometimes be traced to changes in the resource base or to the impact of environmental catastrophes on the economy.Emissions accounting. Developed by the Dutch, the National Accounting Matrix including Environmental Accounts (NAMEA