會計環(huán)境外文翻譯--我們現(xiàn)在所處的狀況及我們前進的方向

1、<p><b>　　中文4500字</b></p><p><b>　　外文翻譯：</b></p><p><b>　　環(huán)境會計</b></p><p>　　——我們現(xiàn)在所處的狀況及我們前進的方向</p><p>　　by Joy E. Hecht</p>

2、<p>　　利益增長改變國民收入核算制度以促進了解經(jīng)濟和環(huán)境之間的聯(lián)系。</p><p>　　在過去的二十年間..環(huán)境會計領(lǐng)域取得了很大的進步.它從一個比較冷僻領(lǐng)域努力到現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)是一個經(jīng)幾十個國家測試和多方面的完善的領(lǐng)域。 但是.國家有可能把環(huán)境的經(jīng)濟作用結(jié)合到國民收入賬戶中..這種既不是快速的賣空.也不是種快速的過程。自從20世紀60年代以來..這種想法已經(jīng)被討論。 盡管在這篇文章中面臨重重困難和

3、爭議.但是.與日劇增的在國民收入核算制度中所產(chǎn)生的利益促進了我們對經(jīng)濟和環(huán)境直接關(guān)系的了解。</p><p><b>　　為何改變？</b></p><p>　　世界各國政府建立經(jīng)濟數(shù)據(jù)系統(tǒng)稱為國民收入賬戶.它是用來計算宏觀經(jīng)濟的指標(biāo).如國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值。建立一個國家經(jīng)濟環(huán)境使用到這種賬戶是回應(yīng)幾個在依照由聯(lián)合國規(guī)定并且在全世界廣泛使用的國民核算體系中認識到的缺點.其中一

4、個缺點就是環(huán)境保護中的費用不能被鑒別出來。因此.有些人辯稱道.所花的費用.也就是說.用來安裝控制環(huán)境污染的裝置隨著國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值的增幅.即使開支也不是經(jīng)濟化地生產(chǎn)。這些批評者呼吁區(qū)分防御性的花費要從賬戶中其他部分支出。</p><p>　　同時，雖然有些環(huán)境商品上不了市場..但是它們提供了經(jīng)濟價值。這種現(xiàn)象是令人費解的。薪材聚集在森林.肉類和魚類聚集消費.藥用植物它們都是例證.同樣的用于喝和灌溉的水.其出售價格只是

5、反映了分配和處理基本設(shè)施的花費.而不是水本身。雖然有些國家確實把這類貨物包括在其國民收入賬戶.但沒有存在著這樣做的標(biāo)準慣例。當(dāng)非市場貨物列入賬戶中.他們?nèi)匀粺o法從那些銷售的產(chǎn)品中區(qū)分出來。</p><p>　　重視環(huán)境服務(wù)如森林提供的集水區(qū)保護與昆蟲提供作物施肥是很困難的。雖然有些專家呼吁將它們列入環(huán)保調(diào)整賬戶..但是那些有經(jīng)濟價值和退化的服務(wù)都沒有包括進。在另一方面.需要候補貨物和服務(wù)來代替比如說水處理設(shè)備.用

6、來對國民生產(chǎn)總值做貢獻..它是有誤導(dǎo)之嫌。</p><p>　　還有個問題是.國民收入賬戶對待制成品資本的折舊和自然資本的折舊是不同的。實物資本比如說建筑物或一臺機器..其折舊是按照傳統(tǒng)的商業(yè)會計原則.但是所有自然資本的消費是計為收入的。因此.一個國家的賬戶中.森林資源的豐收是不能用來支撐起幾年的高收入.但是也不會反映出有生產(chǎn)力的林業(yè)資產(chǎn)的破壞。雖然就如何貶值自然資本的觀點眾說紛紜.但他們一致認為需要這么做。哪種

7、指示是有效的.</p><p>　　一些支持者主張簡單的"標(biāo)記"指標(biāo)..以提醒決策者環(huán)境在經(jīng)濟方面有著眾多的角色。舉例來說.傳統(tǒng)的國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值和經(jīng)環(huán)境調(diào)整的國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值.或傳統(tǒng)的儲蓄與所謂的"正版"的儲蓄賬戶比較.發(fā)現(xiàn)環(huán)境因素是主要原因。上述兩個指標(biāo)可以提供寶貴的警告.告誡環(huán)境惡化對經(jīng)濟增長的沖擊。然而.這樣的標(biāo)記在確定環(huán)境損害的來源.或找出一個政策回應(yīng)上用處不是很大?；?/p>

8、這個原因.許多經(jīng)濟學(xué)家安置頭等重要性不是在底線.而是放在潛在的數(shù)據(jù)用于建立環(huán)境帳戶。這些數(shù)據(jù)可以幫助解決自然災(zāi)害影響帶給經(jīng)濟增長的阻礙.象印度尼西亞在1998 年夏天發(fā)生的火災(zāi).或如何運用環(huán)保政策來影響經(jīng)濟如環(huán)保稅的問題。</p><p><b>　　誰正在做環(huán)境會計？</b></p><p>　　環(huán)境會計正在幾十個國家中進行著.無論是國內(nèi)還是國外的政府.統(tǒng)計人員和其

9、他支持者已經(jīng)在過去的數(shù)十年中開展了一些活動。有幾個國家成功地在常規(guī)數(shù)據(jù)系統(tǒng)的建立上持續(xù)投資.并且合并到現(xiàn)有的統(tǒng)計制度和經(jīng)濟規(guī)劃活動中。有的甚至用有限的能力來計算幾個指標(biāo).或分析一個單一的部門。一些最早的研究環(huán)境會計工作是由亨利.帕斯金完成.他是為美國研究賬戶設(shè)計的。</p><p>　　挪威是第一批建立環(huán)境賬戶的國家.它從在20 世紀70 年代開始收集能源.漁業(yè).森林和礦產(chǎn)的數(shù)據(jù).來用說明資源的匱乏。長期以來.挪

10、威已經(jīng)擴大了其賬戶.把對空氣污染物的排放量納入其中。其賬戶以國民經(jīng)濟為模型.決策者可以用來評估對于能量交替增長決策的涵義。列入這些數(shù)據(jù)也使得他們可以預(yù)見不同的經(jīng)濟增長模型對遵守國際公約會對污染物的排放量的影響。</p><p>　　最近.一些資源依賴型國家對衡量他們的自然資產(chǎn)折舊產(chǎn)生了興趣.并開始調(diào)整他們環(huán)境的國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值。1989年的研究報告"消耗性資產(chǎn).自然資源在國民收入賬戶"是其中一個推

11、動力。這份報告中.羅伯特雷佩托和他在世界資源研究所的同事們對印度尼西亞的森林.石油儲量和土壤的資產(chǎn)進行折舊評估。一旦賬戶中的折舊量被校正好.印度尼西亞的國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值和增長速度都將低于常規(guī)的數(shù)據(jù)。然而所謂許多行動中的“消耗性資產(chǎn)”.它起者一個閘的作用.導(dǎo)致許多經(jīng)濟學(xué)家和統(tǒng)計學(xué)家對于過分重視綠色國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值發(fā)出警告.因為它沒有告訴決策者任何關(guān)于環(huán)境問題的起因或者是解決方法。</p><p>　　那時以來.一些發(fā)展中國

12、家已對基礎(chǔ)廣泛的環(huán)境會計作出了長期承諾。納米比亞從1994年著手開始資源賬戶的工作.解決政府是否已經(jīng)能夠從礦產(chǎn)和漁業(yè)部門得到租金.如何分配稀少的食水供應(yīng).以及草場退化影響牲畜的價值等這種問題。</p><p>　　菲律賓在1990 年起開始致力于環(huán)境賬戶。所采用的辦法是建立一切經(jīng)濟投入和產(chǎn)出賬戶.包括非市場商品和服務(wù)的環(huán)境。因而菲律賓人對收集的薪材和廢物處置.由空氣.水.土地所提供的服務(wù)進行貨幣價值的估計.然后直

13、接加入到服務(wù)消費行列中.因為它們是作為自然界的娛樂和審美的增值。然而.他們的思維方式是具爭議性的.這些賬戶為供菲律賓政府機構(gòu)和研究人員提供決策和分析所需的各種各樣的數(shù)據(jù)。</p><p>　　但是在環(huán)境會計舞臺.美國沒有發(fā)揮著領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的作用。在克林頓政府時期.經(jīng)濟分析局對礦產(chǎn)部門發(fā)起了環(huán)境會計的進軍.但是這個初步的嘗試卷入政治爭議.同時面臨著礦物制品制造業(yè)的反對。然后.國會要求國家研究委員會形成一個藍絲帶小組來考慮

14、國家應(yīng)該用什么方式來做環(huán)境會計.自那時起.美國國會撥款給經(jīng)濟分析局.但在次之前.他們一直明確禁止經(jīng)濟分析局進行環(huán)境會計工作?，F(xiàn)在這項禁令可能被取消.不過.這些對國家研究委員會的建議是要向公眾公布。</p><p><b>　　如何計算？</b></p><p>　　在考慮不同的方面時.環(huán)境會計有著不同的計算方法.特別是需要得到巨額的投資.客觀的數(shù)據(jù)能力來比較不同種環(huán)境

15、的影響以及各種政策的目的時它們可以適用。這里有些目前正在使用的方法。</p><p>　　自然資源賬戶.它包括自然資源存儲數(shù)據(jù)和由自然或人為使用造成的變化的數(shù)據(jù)。這種賬戶通常覆蓋農(nóng)業(yè)用地.漁業(yè).森林.礦產(chǎn).石油和水。在一些國家.該賬戶還包括這些資源的金融價值數(shù)據(jù).但是在嘗試計算中遇到了重大的技術(shù)難題。當(dāng)貨物在市場中出售.這是相當(dāng)容易去追蹤價值的資源流動.同樣地.木材和魚類也適用。但是.計算庫存地變化是比較困難地.

16、因為它們可能是由一方資源的自然變化或者是波動的市場價格造成的。</p><p>　　環(huán)境商品和服務(wù)是不會被出售.因此那就是更加難以確立流動或改變庫存的價值觀念。不過.即使是自然的數(shù)據(jù).也可以聯(lián)系到經(jīng)濟的政策目的。舉例來說.變動收入有時可以追溯到資源的變化.或是環(huán)境災(zāi)難對經(jīng)濟造成的影響。排放量核算.這是由荷蘭人研發(fā)的.包括環(huán)境賬戶的國民核算矩陣.它是把帳戶組合到一個矩陣中.其中由經(jīng)濟部門來確定污染物排放量。歐盟統(tǒng)計

17、局是歐洲聯(lián)盟中的統(tǒng)計支架.他幫助歐盟成員國來應(yīng)用這方法.因為它是環(huán)境會計系統(tǒng)中的一部分。核算矩陣系統(tǒng)中的自然數(shù)據(jù)是用來評估不同增長策略對環(huán)境質(zhì)量的影響。污染物排放量可以把數(shù)據(jù)分離開來.以了解對國內(nèi)的.跨國界.或全球性的環(huán)境的影響。如果排放價值是用貨幣來衡量的.這些價值觀念可以用來計算把避免環(huán)境退化放在首位時付出的經(jīng)濟代價.以及比較保護環(huán)境的成本和效益。</p><p>　　常規(guī)國民賬目的解體.有時候,在常規(guī)賬目中

18、把數(shù)據(jù)拆開以確定具體的支出與環(huán)境有關(guān),例如那些防止或減輕損害的.以購買和安裝保護裝置,或者支付費用和補貼的花費。隨著時間的推移,揭示這些數(shù)據(jù)使人們有可以觀察環(huán)境政策變化和環(huán)境保護的費用之間的關(guān)系,以及追蹤環(huán)保行業(yè)的進展。</p><p>　　雖然這些數(shù)據(jù)有著顯而易見的利益.但是有的人認為被隔離的數(shù)據(jù)可以產(chǎn)生誤導(dǎo)作用。舉例來說.盡管管道終端污染控制設(shè)備是很容易觀察到.通過重新設(shè)計產(chǎn)品或流程變革而不是依賴于特別的設(shè)備

19、.新的工廠和與日俱增的車輛正在降低它們污染物的排放量。在這種情況下.在賬戶上不會顯現(xiàn)出受污染控制的花費.但在支出顯現(xiàn)出來的情況下.環(huán)境保護方面可能會做得更加好些。</p><p>　　非市場環(huán)境商品和服務(wù)的價值.相當(dāng)多的爭論存在于非市場環(huán)境商品和服務(wù)的估算價值是否應(yīng)該包括那些在環(huán)境賬戶中。例如.一個未受污染的湖泊或風(fēng)景區(qū)的景色帶來的好處。一方面.這些項目的總價值是至關(guān)重要的.當(dāng)該賬戶將用來權(quán)衡經(jīng)濟和環(huán)境目標(biāo)。否則

20、.該賬戶可能結(jié)束那些用來反映不以任何方式保護生態(tài)環(huán)境的成本。另一方面..有些人認為估價是一個建模的活動.其超越傳統(tǒng)了會計.并且不應(yīng)該直接關(guān)系到國民核算體系。他們認為估價方法是難以規(guī)范的.所以使由此產(chǎn)生的賬戶可能不具有國家之間的或經(jīng)濟部門內(nèi)部的可比性。</p><p>　　綠色國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值.發(fā)展包括環(huán)境的國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值是一個備受爭議的事情。大多數(shù)人都積極參與建設(shè)環(huán)境賬戶使它的重要性減到最小。因為環(huán)境核算方法不規(guī)范.一

21、個綠色國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值在每個項目計算上可以有不同的意義.因此價值觀在國家之間是不具有可比性。此外.雖然一個綠色國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值可以提請大家注意政策問題.但是它對于如何解決這些問題沒有很大用處。然而大多數(shù)的會計項目包括貨幣價值用這一指標(biāo)來做計算.盡管它存在局限性.但是還是存在著極大的利益。</p><p><b>　　在方法上達成共識</b></p><p>　　如果國際上能協(xié)

22、商一致.環(huán)境會計將得到強有力的幫助。聯(lián)合國統(tǒng)計署已自20世紀80年代已在為此做出的努力并取得一定成果。在1993年..聯(lián)合國公布將綜合經(jīng)濟與環(huán)境會計.SEEA.作為附件對國民核算體系進行修訂。SEEA的結(jié)構(gòu)安排了一系列的備選方法.其中包括大部分在上述提到過的會計活動;使用者可選擇最適合他們需要的一種。</p><p>　　在聯(lián)合國所建議的各種方法不存在公眾輿論。事實上.SEEA現(xiàn)在正在進行由所謂的"倫敦

23、小組"提出的修改.主要是由來自經(jīng)濟合作與發(fā)展組織國家的國民收入的會計和統(tǒng)計人員組成的。該小組的工作一個重要步驟將是對會計處理方法的達成一定的共識.但這一進程將是漫長..發(fā)展傳統(tǒng)的國民核算體系用了四十年。</p><p><b>　　對它的普遍使用</b></p><p>　　對于朝著確保環(huán)境核算以及國民核算體系被確立為目標(biāo)的努力.現(xiàn)在若干步驟可以被采取。首先

24、.對現(xiàn)有環(huán)境賬戶和它們是如何促進經(jīng)濟和環(huán)境政策的相關(guān)信息必須自由流通。為了吸取經(jīng)驗教訓(xùn).對于現(xiàn)在正在進行的工作需要加以確認和系統(tǒng)地回顧分析.這可為設(shè)計和執(zhí)行未來的審計活動提供信息。世界自然保護聯(lián)盟已著手關(guān)于綠色會計的倡議這方面努力.它和其他一些組織都呼吁類似的活動。利用萬維網(wǎng)上可方便獲取未發(fā)表的工作.雖然這將需要協(xié)調(diào)一致的努力.以取得會計報告.并尋求批準把他們裝載在因特網(wǎng)上。</p><p>　　第二.發(fā)展的一個

25、以國際標(biāo)準化為核心的方法將有助于大家采用環(huán)境會計的意愿。該領(lǐng)域的專家包括經(jīng)濟學(xué)家.環(huán)保人士.學(xué)者和其他人的國家統(tǒng)計辦公室等.應(yīng)采取積極主動的作用.在追蹤倫敦小組的工作時堅持標(biāo)準制定過程中涉及參與的國家和利害攸關(guān)者代表的一系列觀點。它為科研院所以率先采取行動找出所需要的財政資源以促進更廣泛的標(biāo)準制定過程.并爭取全方位的聲音.以就方法論建立共識。</p><p>　　最后.可能也是最重要的是.更多的國家將建設(shè)的環(huán)境賬

26、戶制度化.以更大的動力達成更多相同觀點。還有.建立賬戶不是一朝一夕的事。其建立將需要持久的體制和財政承諾以確保投資持續(xù)時間長而足以顯出成效。但有豐富經(jīng)驗的挪威.納米比亞.菲律賓表明.這種承諾可以實現(xiàn).它也是需要更多的國家在世界做出的承諾。</p><p><b>　　原文正文：</b></p><p>　　Environmental Accounting</p&

27、gt;<p>　　Where We Are Now, Where We Are Heading</p><p>　　by Joy E. Hecht</p><p>　　Interest is growing in modifying national income accounting systems to promote understanding of the links

28、 between economy and environment.</p><p>　　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

29、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 196

30、0s. Despite the difficulties and controversies described in this article, however, interest is growing in modifying </p><p>　　Why Change?</p><p>　　Governments around the world develop economic d

31、ata systems known as national income accounts to calculate macroeconomic indicators such as gross domestic product. Building a nation’s economic use of the environment into such accounts is a response to several perceive

32、d 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

33、, money spent</p><p>　　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

34、 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

35、in their national income accounts, no standard practices exist for doing so. When nonmarketed go</p><p>　　Valuing environmental services such as the watershed protection that forests afford and the crop fert

36、ilization 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 t

37、he other hand, however, the alternate goods and services needed to replace them—water treatment plants, for example—do contribute to GDP, which can be rather misleading.</p><p>　　Still another problem is tha

38、t national income accounts treat the depreciation of manufactured capital and natural capital differently. Physical capital—a building or a machine, for instance—is depreciated in accordance with conventional business ac

39、counting 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

40、 the destruction of the producti</p><p>　　Which Indicators Are Useful?</p><p>　　Some proponents advocate simple “flag” indicators to alert policymakers to the broad role of the environment in th

41、e economy, for example, comparing conventional GDP with environmentally adjusted GDP, or conventional savings with so-called “genuine” savings that account for environmental factors. Both of these indicators can provide

42、valuable warnings of the impacts of environmental degradation on an economy.</p><p>　　However, such flags are less useful in determining the source of environmental harm or identifying a policy response. For

43、 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 t

44、he 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 </p><p>　　Who Is Doing This?</p><p>

45、;　　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

46、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 indicat

47、ors, or analyze a single sector. Some of the earliest research </p><p>　　One of the first countries to build environmental accounts is Norway, which began collecting data on energy sources, fisheries, forest

48、s, 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, whic

49、h policymakers use to assess the energy implications of alternate growth strategies. Inclusion of these data also allows them to anticipate the im</p><p>　　More recently, a number of resource-dependent count

50、ries 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

51、 Income Accounts,” in which Robert Repetto and his colleagues at the World Resources Institute estimated the depreciation of Indonesia’s forests, petroleum reserves, and soil assets. Once adjusted to account for that dep

52、reciation</p><p>　　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 ques

53、tions 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.</p><

54、p>　　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. Thu

55、s 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

56、appreciation of the natural world. While their methodology is contr</p><p>　　The United States has not been a leader in the environmental accounting arena. At the start of the Clinton administration, the Bur

57、eau 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. Co

58、ngress 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 ac</p><p>　　How to Account?</p><p>　　How envir

59、onmental 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 ki

60、nds of policy purposes to which they may be applied. Here are some of the methods currently in use.</p><p>　　Natural Resource Accounts. These include data on stocks of natural resources and changes in them c

61、aused 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 va

62、lue 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, </p><p>　　For environment

63、al 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

64、, changes in income can sometimes be traced to changes in the resource base or to the impact of environmental catastrophes on the economy.</p><p>　　Emissions accounting. Developed by the Dutch, the National

65、Accounting Matrix including Environmental Accounts (NAMEA) structures the accounts in a matrix, which identifies pollutant emissions by economic sector. Eurostat, the statistical arm of the European Union, is helping EU

66、members apply this approach as part of its environmental accounting program. The physical data in the NAMEA system are used to assess the impact of different growth strategies on environmental quality. Data can also be s

67、e</p><p>　　Disaggregation of conventional national accounts. Sometimes data in the conventional accounts are taken apart to identify expenditures specifically related to the environment, such as those incurr

68、ed to prevent or mitigate harm, to buy and install protection equipment, or to pay for charges and subsidies. Over time, revelation of these data makes it possible to observe links between changes in environmental policy

69、</p><p>　　and costs of environmental protection, as well as to track the evolution of the</p><p>　　environmental protection industry.</p><p>　　While these data are of obvious intere

70、st, some people argue that looking at them in isolation can be misleading. For example, while end-of-pipe pollution control equipment is easily observed, new factories and vehicles increasingly are lowering their polluta

71、nt emissions through product redesign or process change rather than relying on special equipment. In such cases, no pollution control expenditures would show up in the accounts, yet environmental performance might be bet

72、ter than in a case whe</p><p>　　Value of nonmarketed environmental goods and services. Considerable controversy exists over whether to include the imputed value of nonmarketed environmental goods and service

73、s in environmental accounts, such as the benefits of an unpolluted lake or a scenic vista. On the one hand, the value of these items is crucial if the accounts are to be used to assess tradeoffs between economic and envi

74、ronmental goals. Otherwise, the accounts can end up reflecting the costs of protecting the environment wi</p><p>　　Green GDP. Developing a gross domestic product that includes the environment is also a matte

75、r of controversy. Most people actively involved in building environmental accounts minimize its importance. Because environmental accounting methods are not standardized, a green GDP can have a different meaning in each

76、project that calculates it, so values are not comparable across countries. Moreover, while a green GDP can draw attention to policy problems, it is not useful for figuring out how to resol</p><p>　　Toward Co

77、nsensus on Method</p><p>　　Environmental accounting would receive a substantial boost if an international consensus could be reached on methodology. The UN Statistics Department has coordinated some of the o

78、ngoing 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 serie

79、s of methodological options, which include most of the different accounting activities described abo</p><p>　　No consensus exists on the various methods that the UN recommended. In fact, SEEA is now undergoi

80、ng revision by the so-called “London Group,” comprised primarily of national income accountants and statisticians from OECD countries. The group’s work will be an important step toward consensus on accounting methods, bu

81、t the process will be lengthy: Development of the conventional SNA took some forty years. </p><p>　　Toward Widespread Use </p><p>　　A number of steps can be taken now toward the goal of ensuring

82、 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

83、 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 Conse&l

84、t;/p><p>　　Second, development of a core of internationally standardized methods will contribute to willingness to adopt environmental accounting. Experts in the field—including economists, environmentalists, a

85、cademics, and others outside of the national statistical offices—should take a proactive role in tracking the work of the London Group and insist that the standard- setting process involve participants representing a spe

86、ctrum of viewpoints, countries, and interested stakeholders. An opportunity exist</p><p>　　Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the more countries institutionalize construction of environmental accounts, t

87、he greater the momentum for more of the same.</p><p>　　Still, building accounts—like developing any timeseries statistics—will not happen overnight. Their construction will require sustained institutional an

88、d financial commitment to ensure that the investment lasts long enough to yield results. But the experiences of Norway, Namibia, and the Philippines show that such a commitment can pay off; it is a commitment that more c