MoiraB (asker) Sep 24:

Thanks, John That does make sense, though unfortunately too late to suggest an alternative translation for this one. However, it seems to be a recurring phrase, so I'll bear it mind if it ever comes up again.

John Holloway Sep 24:

Late observation - but of general application? (Disclaimer: I am not an accountant. 'Claimer': Done plenty of language services jobs requiring familiarity with accounting terms and practices, at international level, for more than a decade.) Re-looking this (as this item was served up to me today, again, for some reason - perhaps connected to my '15 minutes of fame' as the currently 'featured' proz.com translator), this occurs: The Dutch source may be guilty of an innaccuracy, which has also slightly skewed the translation. (The latter thus remains accurate, though only literally, in a transation context.) Why? It is the value of the asset that depreciates (or is 'amortised', or 'written off' - all are good), not the investment in the asset. (So that, in this case, the value of the asset - probably the waste sorting plant - starts at its purchase value and ends, after 9 years, at 0 value on the books of the organisation that owns it - in terms of valuation of the organisation and perhaps for tax purposes.)