environmental-accounting-环境会计-外文翻译.doc

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.Toward Consensus on MethodEnvironmental accounting would receive a substantial boost if an international consensus could be reached on methodology. The UN Statistics Department has coordinated some of the ongoing efforts toward this end since the 1980s. In 1993, the UN published the System for Integrated Economic and Environmental Accounting (SEEA) as an annex to the 1993 revisions of the SNA. SEEA is structured as a series of methodological options, which include most of the different accounting activities described above; users choose the options most appropriate to their needs. No consensus exists on the various methods that the UN recommended. In fact, SEEA is now undergoing revision by the so-called “London Group,” comprised primarily of national income accountants and statisticians from OECD countries. The groups work will be an important step toward consensus on accounting methods, but the process will be lengthy: Development of the conventional SNA took some forty years.Toward Widespread UseA number of steps can be taken now toward the goal of ensuring that environmental accounting is as well established as the SNA. First, information must circulate freely about existing environmental accounts and how they are contributing to economic and environmental policy. Ongoing work needs to be identified and systematically reviewed and analyzed to learn lessons, which may inform the design and implementation of future accounting activities. The Green Accounting Initiative of the World Conservation Union has embarked on this effort, and a number of other organizations are calling for similar activities. Use of the World Wide Web may facilitate access to unpublished work, although it will require a concerted effort to obtain accounting reports and seek permission to load them on the Internet. Second, development of a core of internationally standardized methods will contribute to willingness to adopt environmental accounting. Experts in the fieldincluding economists, environmentalists, academics, and others outside of the national statistical officesshould take a proactive role in tracking the work of the London Group and insist that the standard- setting process involve participants representing a spectrum of viewpoints, countries, and interested stakeholders. An opportunity exists for research institutes to take a lead in identifying the financial resources needed to facilitate a broader standardsetting process, and to elicit a full range of voices to build a consensus on methodology. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the more countries institutionalize construction of environmental accounts, the greater the momentum for more of the same. 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。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目 录第一章 总 论1第一节 项目概述1第二节 可行性研究的依据3第三节 可行性研究的范围和内容3第五节 技术经济指标4第二章 项目背景和建设的必要性5第一节 项目提出的背景5第二节 项目建设的必要性7第三章需求分析及服务规模与标准9第一节需求分析9第二节服务规模与标准10第四章项目选址及建设条件13第一节 项目选址13第二节项目区自然条件13第三节项目区社会经济条件18第四节项目区基础设施状况20第五章规划设计和建设方案23第一节 设计依据和目标23第二节 规划方案分析25第三节 建设方案31第六章消 防46第七章环保和劳动安全卫生47第一节 环境保护47第二节 劳动安全卫生48第三节 建议50第八章节能分析52第一节 概 述52第二节 节能设计依据52第三节 能耗分析53第四节 节能措施54第九章项目组织管理和实施进度58第一节 项目组织管理58第二节进度计划安排60第十章招投标方案62第一节招标管理62第二节项目招标基本情况65第十一章投资估算与资金筹措66第一节 投资估算66第二节 资金筹措70第十二章效益分析71第一节 经济效益71第二节 社会效益73第十三章结 论75