文章 Articles

怎样保护北京的“两盆水”

奥运会到来之前,北京的水短缺问题再次成为关注的焦点 。蒋高明阐述了北京该如何防治饮用水源污染问题,以确保水供给。

Article image

不久前,笔者熟悉的一个环保志愿者从河北省赤城县发来电子邮件,称该县某镇一所小学将粪便直排到附近河流。该小学有七八间厕所,每天产生大量粪便,学校定期花一千多元左右,雇人将粪便挖出倒入黑河(密云水库上游水源)。朋友在现场气愤地拍摄了录像,作为北京饮用水源污染的证据。

北京是严重缺水的城市,人均水资源占有量只有世界平均水平的三十分之一。官厅水库是1951年我国建立的第一座大型水库,流域面积4.3万平方公里。建成以来,已累计向下游供水396亿立方米,年灌溉农田110万亩。但是,由于上游工业活动以及社区经济迅猛发展,官厅水库出现了全面退化,突出表现在来水量逐年减少、水质严重污染、泥沙淤积严重等方面。官厅水库水质早就下降到五类水以上,被迫于1985年退出了北京市饮用水源的行列。因此,目前北京市饮用水源就只有密云水库、怀柔水库这“两盆水”了。但是,密云水库的状况也不容乐观,供水量在不断减少的同时,水质也出现了明显的富营养化趋势。原因之一就有上述常见的粪便直排和化肥、农药等造成的“面源”污染。

尽管北京加大了水源保护力度,也取得了一定的成绩。但是,问题依然十分严重,突出表现在经费使用不当。在9月份召开的北京市人大常委会第38次会议上,市人大农村委员会主任委员刘宝善指出,北京对1.5亿元的水源地保护专项资金使用中,真正用于水源地保护的仅有8千多万元。北京547条小流域还有266条未治理。按照目前每年治理20条的速度,还需要13年多才能初步治理一遍,显然不能满足尽快改变北京水源地生态质量的要求,更何况有些治理还可能出现“反弹”。而对于上游水源地的生态治理则是“鞭长莫及”。

在上游水源保护方面,人们倾向于造林涵养水源,而对于来自农田和人畜粪便污染则重视不够。北京计划从2007年开始到2011年,投入1亿元资金,重点支持河北省张家口、承德完成20万亩水源保护林建设工程;在继续实施京津风沙源治理工程基础上,启动京北风沙危害区植被恢复与水源保护林建设等一批生态治理工程。但在这些项目中,并没有对来自社区生产、生存和消费方式带来的水源污染进行专项治理,如上游露天粪便治理就没有考虑进去。

实际上,粪便是非常好的农业资源,目前还可能是“稀有”资源。由于近年来现代农业的普及,化肥替代了有机肥,种植业对化肥和农药的依赖越来越大,这对上游水源保护带来了更大的困难。在水源保护问题上,上游穷,下游富,如果治理措施不和农民的切身利益结合,那就是“治标不治本”。如果北京市拿出少量的费用用于上游农业经营方式更新,由发展无机农业改为发展有机农业,用有机肥替代化肥;用秸秆发展动物养殖,粪便发展沼气产业,沼渣沼液还田,替代化石能源和保护山地植被;学校建立大型沼气池或化粪池,杜绝粪便直排河流;北京市民消费上游的有机产品,农民有切实的收入保障,那么,上游水源保护的难度就可以大大降低了。

针对北京水源保护问题,根据现场调研和专家研讨的结果,我们建议北京市应将治理重点转移到以下几个具体工作上来:

第一,迅速建立包括密云水库、官厅水库、怀柔水库在内,以保护水质水量为主,兼顾防风固沙的“京北水源地生态安全功能保护区”。按照国务院批准的《全国生态环境保护纲要》要求,规划与设计北京水源保护功能区,解决水源地的生态安全问题。由水利部牵头,北京市、河北省、山西省密切配合,统一领导、统一认识、统一法规,建立统一的管理机制,克服目前分散管理的各种弊端。功能区建立后,各种土地利用格局需要进行合理调整与科学规划。

第二,运用市场经济杠杆的调控作用,将下游吃水的高额费用与上游产水与保水的“生态补偿”结合起来,从而实现良性循环。水源上游地区改变传统的土地利用方式,减少人口和牲畜压力,腾出来的大量土地恢复森林或草原植被,由产粮区或产肉区变成产水区,其经济的损失由北京市征收的水费中合理补偿。即使种地,也应当发展有机农业,将人畜粪便作为有机农业的重要资源利用起来,提高单位土地的经济产出,减少并最终杜绝化肥与农药的使用。

第三,生态治理必须与上游地区的脱贫致富联系起来。在水源上游,生态治理的难点不是来自自然,而是来自人为的压力。应当主动帮助社区解决能源问题(如建立沼气池、沼气供气站等)、卫生问题(如建立垃圾处理场、污水处理厂等)。从而保证产水区有足够的植被覆盖,产出足够的水,并保证入库水为清洁之水。

北京水源保护刻不容缓,这是关系到首都居民安全、国家形象、奥运能否成功的大计,行动宜早不宜迟。希望有关单位密切配合首都水资源可持续利用规划方案,妥善解决上述存在的问题,尽快实现上游生态环境质量的整体改善。

蒋高明,中国科学院植物研究所首席研究员、博士生导师,联合国教科文组织人与生物圈中国国家委员会副秘书长、中国环境文化促进会理事。他提出的“城市植被”概念和“以自然力恢复中国退化生态系统”等观点得到社会各界广泛认可。

首页图片由pretty.face

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

北京的好处

住在北京还是很不错的,各地都要做出牺牲保证我们的供水供电。有时候真不忍心,像河北山西这么缺水的地方还要支援北京。

The benefits of living in Beijing

Living in Beijing is a real blessing, since all other places have to make sacrifices to ensure Beijing's water and electricity supply. It is really sad to think that places like Hebei and Shanxi, which suffer from water shortages themselves, still have to contribute water to Beijing.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

有谁清楚北京的水危机?

小道消息:由于担心从河北四个水库引水支援北京奥运遭受舆论批评,北京已经暂停该项计划,据称要立足本地解决奥运时期供水问题。立足本地惟有动用地下水。而地下水已经占到全市供水总量的2/3。
有些问题一直没有弄清楚:北京到底还有多少水?北京的水危机到底有多严峻?近年来对地下水的超采已经造成的地面沉降、地下漏斗等一系列环境问题,超采还要继续到何时?
北京的水资源浪费依然严重。专家们有时拿北京和以色列相比,但应对水危机时,这个城市到处可见绿地漫灌,清水从粗大的水管里哗哗流出,甚至溢流到街道上,日益拥堵的街道上新上牌照的汽车每天都在增加,没有人算一算洗车浪费掉多少水,节水技术并不高的农业,依然耗费了这个城市用水量的一半以上。
北京的水污染问题已经凸显。不说别的污染源,仅北京市一天的垃圾就有1.5万吨,盲目堆放已经形成北京地下水污染源。南水北调进京后,地下水位上升,不仅有些建筑会受到水压的上顶力的影响,垃圾堆放地也极易产生新的水质污染问题。
这些都是问题,还有很多问题,但是最大的问题是我们不知道问题的真实情况。如果这些信息能够清晰地呈现在公众面前,我想,大家都会积极去想办法,也会真正自觉地去珍希每一滴水。
我们需要的是一些面对现实的勇气,告诉大家真实的情况,天是不会塌下来的。

Any insider’s comments on Beijing’s water crisis?

Rumour has it that out of concern over possible public criticism over the transfer of water from four reservoirs in Hebei to Beijing, the Beijing government has put the project on hold. Reportedly Beijing will try and meet water demands during the Olympic Games with its local water reserves. That means tapping into groundwater resources. Up until now, groundwater already accounts for two-thirds of the overall water supply in Beijing.

A few questions remain unanswered when it comes to Beijing water resources. How much water is left in Beijing? To what extent is Beijing’s water in crisis? In recent years, over-extraction of groundwater has caused a series of environmental problems, including ground subsidence. How long will the current over-extraction go unaddressed?

There still exists the lavish use of water resources everywhere in Beijing. Experts compare Beijing to Israel in terms of water shortages. However, flood irrigation of green space can be seen everywhere in the city. Newly-licensed vehicles are being packed onto the over-crowded roads of Beijing everyday. Has anyone ever bothered to take an account on how much water will be consumed washing these vehicles? With few water-saving technologies, farming accounts for half of Beijing’s overall water consumption.

And the problem of water pollution is coming to the fore. Other pollutants aside, Beijing generates 15,000 tonnes of solid waste each day. The disorderly disposal of rubbish is posing a threat to groundwater. The water transferred from the south causes underground water levels to rise, which affects some buildings via increased water pressure, as well as making numerous rubbish dumping grounds pollution spots.

The list of problems can go on and on. But the biggest problem is that the truth is being hidden from us. If only the whole picture were fully revealed before the public, everyone would pool in his own effort to help overcome the crisis. The authorities need to summon enough courage to tell us the truth.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

2号评论很不错,看来是个专家

大而言之,有谁知道中国还有多少水?还有多少能用的水?

Comment 2 by an expert

Comment 2 is great. Does anybody know the amount of water available in China?

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

这些办法真会奏效吗?

我相信原文在理论上提出了很好的方案,但在实际中很难执行这些保护和处理饮用水的措施。如果能够运用市场机制把下游的水资源消费和上游的水源保护结合起来,将会是个不错的做法,但市场不能解决这个问题所涉及的所有外部因素。要使上游的农民遵守为下游居民提供清洁饮用水所需的相关政策和法规几乎是不可能的。作者提出的方案很好,只是我不认为可行。第二条评论也很好,但我不认为新增轿车的洗车用水有什么可忧虑的,我觉得有点言过其实了。 —kyle

Can these ideas really work?

I believe that the original article sounds good in theory, but in the real world it is going to be much harder to implement these ideas on how to conserve and treat the available drinking water. It would be a great idea to link water consumption downstream with water protection upstream using market mechanisms, but the market does not account for all the externalities that are involved in this issue. It would be nearly impossible to get the farmers upstream to comply with the policies and regulations that are needed to clean up the water for downstream users. It is a wonderful idea, I just dont think it will work. Comment number two also sounds good but I dont think we should be worried about wasting water from washing all the new cars that will be on the roads. That sounds a like a push to me.
~ kyle

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

淡化水源

国内南部地区的地下水位已下降一米多。甚至在北京,每年人均供应量只为300立方米(约66,000加仑)(Tina Butler, Monabay.com)。中国的人均水资源量是世界人均的最低水平。

更可悲的是,由于北京市民对用水的高需求量而导致数百万农村人一辈子没有可能得到安全的饮水供给。中国需要大量投资淡化海水。对目前受污染并且日益减少的清洁水源,淡化海水似乎是唯一的选择。– Chad

Desalinization

In the northern region of the country, the water table has dropped more than a meter. Even in Beijing, the water supply per capita is only 300 cubic meters (66,000 gallons) per year (Tina Butler, Monabay.com). China's water resources are nearly the lowest per capita in the world.

And yes, its very sad that the "high" water demand in Beijing causes millions of rural Chinese a life without safe drinking water. China needs to heavily invest into desalinization of sea water. With China's polluted and shrinking fresh water resources, they are left only the option of looking to the sea.

- Chad

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

联想:当务之急,控制城镇规模!

由北京缺水应该意识到,中国的特大型城市已经足够了!但现在各级地方政府千方百计要扩大自己城市的规模(可以从各地的五年、十年中长期计划中看到),尤其是一些中小城市。这当然会带来人气,进而带来经济的繁荣,但随之而来的是严重的环境破坏!功不抵过啊!个人意见,中国的城市化应当有条不紊、不急不躁地认真建设好中小城镇,逐步规划建设好甚至乡镇、村落。大中城市适当的人口自然增长是可以的,但只要严格控制城市的土地,天价的房产就会停止城市人口的急速增长。而乡镇、乡村的低廉房价,如果逐步完善基础设施,就会让人们安居乐业,甚至吸引城市人口迁出。这才是中国城市化的正道。在英国留学时,我最爱的不是伦敦、伯明翰,而是田园风光甲天下的英国乡村风光,宛若仙境。

Controlling the scales of towns and cities is an emergent task now.

Beijing’s water crisis sends a clear message to China’s unchecked urbanization process – enough is enough. Yet still governments at every level are sparing no effort in expanding their respective cities (as can be seen in their five or ten-year plans for development), especially those in small cities. No doubt city expansion can attract tourists and boost local economy, but it also wreaks destruction to local environment. Generally, the harms outweigh the benefits.

I believe China’s urbanization should prioritize the development of intermediate and small cities, townships and villages. As for larger cities, the growth of population can be allowed its natural course, but the occupation of farmland has to be strictly controlled, which will make housing prices soar, thus curbing the rapid growth of urban population due to immigration. On the other hand, the low housing prices in the countryside, along with improved infrastructure preferably, will make people settle down, even reverse the rural-to-urban flow of population. This is the right path China’s urbanization should follow. When I was studying in Britain, my most favorite place was not London or Birmingham, but its beautiful countryside.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

教育

就像Kyle在评论四中所说的,文章中的观点如果在一个完美的世界中听起来棒极了,但可惜的是我们生活在一个不完美的世界。在中国,饮用水方面的问题产生是由于人们急功近利想赚钱造成的。由于腐败也致使一些环保政策起不到任何作用。文章中说一亿五千万的资金只有八千万用来保护水资源。我想知道剩下的七千万去了哪里?我相信改善水问题,最好的办法就是所有人教育他们身边的每一个人的有关这个问题的严重性。就像世界上的大多数事情,这是一个思想上的斗争。在这个问题上,我谨希望通过合适的教育方式,人们不再采用一些不合理的手段,这将最终威胁到中国水资源供应。

Educate

As Kyle stated in comment 4, the ideas presented in article sounds great in a perfect world but unfortunately we don’t live in a perfect world. The problems that have been occurring throughout China in regards to its drinking water have occurred due to people cutting corners in order to save or gain money. Corruption has also made any policies to protect the environment highly ineffective. The article states that only 80 million yuan was used to protect waters sources when 150 million yuan was funded; this makes me wonder where the rest of the 70 million yuan went. I believe the best thing anyone can do to improve the water problem would to educate everyone they know on the seriousness of the matter. Like most things in this world, it is a battle of minds. I can only hope that through proper education of the problem, people will be less likely to pursue a means to an end that can threaten China’s water supply.

-JJ

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

个人意见,愿与蒋先生争鸣

我对蒋高明先生文章的几点意见

蒋先生对北京上游赤城县一所小学所排污水的感慨,乃至后面引证和建议,我作为一个略懂环境保护的人来说,完全不能赞同他的观点。

蒋先生在植物学的贡献,我有耳闻非常敬佩,但对他仅仅通过几幅照片、北京市提供的几个片面数字,就发出科学家般的倡议,我看没有科学的态度,因为他的身份和号召力特殊,所以我也愿意从另一个角度说上几句。

熟悉北京周边环境的环境保护工作者都知道,北京和天津都被河北省围绕。其中,河北省张家口市位于上游,几十年来,河北省为了北京市的发展,怀着高度的政治责任感,做了大量的牺牲,张家口和另一个北京的上游城市承德市,目前在河北均属于经济总量和人均GDP排队靠后的设市城市。

我们掌握的情况是,张家口市仍然一如既往的保护官厅水库水源,官厅水库水质目前还比较好,水量减少、泥沙淤积根本的原因是大区域的生态问题,也是水利的问题,不是张家口市环境管理的问题.

至于粪便问题和面源污染问题,北京市境内一样严重!
就我所知道的,以及蒋先生文章提及的需要探讨的。官厅水库及其河北省境内的黑河段是不是北京市的饮用水源地,如果不是,就不允许蒋先生模棱两可的这么说。国家环保部目前正在推动全国饮用水源地的工作,如果是北京市的饮用水源地,至少我们还没有看到北京市主动和河北省友好沟通的消息出现。为了保证好北京的两盆水或三盆水,我们该鞭打的是谁?是河北省还是北京市?

“北京计划从2007年开始到2011年,投入1亿元资金,重点支持河北省张家口、承德完成20万亩水源保护林建设工程”。我不知道这句话,懂点环保的人和完全没有环保概念的人读来是否可笑,一亩地投资500元就能涵养水源,那样的话,我们国家每年增收的万亿财政收入,可以再造多少个北京上游啊!

不能忽视的情况是,比邻北京市的河北省张家口市的经济社会的发展差距和北京市越来越大,北京已经是国际化大都市,已经膨胀到6-7环,上千万人的城市,人均GDP全国领先,而到过张家口市的人也都知道,那里看上去还是比较落后,周围的县大都还是国家级的贫困县。贫富差距这么大,人民生活困苦,北京市如何实现上游生态和谐,北京市和张家口市如何实现和谐社会发展,这才是我们思考问题的高度。
我们看问题也是如此,一个小学,它能排多少污水,能贡献多少COD和氨氮,它能影响到北京市两盆水的多少程度,我们该具有普通的常识啊,绝对不可危言耸听。我不知道蒋老师写作本文,代表科学家的立场还是代表北京市的立场,代表科学家的立场我认为不够严肃,代表北京市的立场,则是转嫁解决问题的责任,甚至是逃避北京市的水源保护责任!

我倒愿意站在某些角度来谈谈解决问题的方案:
一是北京市一定要在中央的领导下,认真搞好城市总体规划,人口总量、人口密度,以及城市的大饼一定不能再继续急速扩张了,如此下去,上游多少盆水都不够使,南水北调三条线再加上北水南掉入京也不够使用啊。如果北京市作不好这样的工作,中央政府一定要考虑“迁都”,用外力把城市扩张的速度降下来。
二是北京市一定要放下姿态,认真和河北省研究饮用水源地的保护问题,河北省从来都是以高度的政治责任感来保护北京水源地的,北京市要主动联系作好这样的工作,多出点钱和力,要知道保护的北京市的水啊,自己一点都不主动,动不动就写这样的东东希望引起中央领导的注意。

三是文中提到了河北省和北京市难以协调的问题,我看这个问题极容易解决。不管水利部也好,环保部也好,都有义务作好这个跨省水源保护区的工作。我目前看不出,协调的难度有多大。两会期间,这样的建议提案有人鼓呼,而京津冀北为保护水源的贫穷问题、移民问题北京市和天津市几十年抬头不见,好像这几十万人人间蒸发了么?如果真是难以协调,我看中央出面,把张家口市划为北京市管辖也好啊,行政的问题一下子就解决了,这其中的另一个好处是,北京市冲天的GDP和雄厚的财政正好给予张家口市人民提高生活水平,使水源地得到很好的保护,一举多得啊,我们倡导的生态文明、倡导的和谐社会,这不是最好的行动么?

四是区域生态补偿的问题。我们国家提出已经很多年来,在京津冀北这一地区尤其紧要。生态补偿,不仅仅是给提高点向北京输水的价格,也不仅仅是让张家口市的贫困人民吃上饭,脱了贫。而是北京市政府和北京市人民要长期协调发展和可持续发展,按照我的粗略估计,必须拿出每年财政收入的10%,中央财政还要每年定向给一些,直接用于张家口市的生态建设、环境保护基础设施建设甚至直接用来提高这些地区的人民的物质生活,将贫富差距尽可能的别再扩大,那几盆水的保护也就迎刃而解了。这个长期的谋划,需要北京市政府和北京市人民做些物质牺牲,大型的工业项目也就不要再上了,如蚁的车辆也不要再增了,也不要再沾沾自喜的数自己人均GDP和人均财政收入排名了。如果仍然如此,古楼兰的今天就是北京市的明天,这在我们的有生之年也许就能看见。

虽然是小人物,我愿意和蒋先生争鸣和激辩。

Diffrent opinions from the author

I respect the author, however I do not think it is appropriate to offer “scientific suggestions” just on the basis of some pictures and figures as Mr Jiang does in the article.

All those who are familiar with environmental protection in and near Beijing know that the city of Zhang Jiakou, situated on the upper reaches of rivers feeding the reservoirs in Beijing, has made a big sacrifice for the development of Beijing. It is known that Zhang Jiakou has been always trying to protect the water resources of Guanting Reservoir. Currently, water quality in the reservoir is quite good.

Decreasing water and increasing sedimentation in the reservoir is a result of degrading ecosystem in the region, rather than the management and governance problems in Jiang Jiakou. The problems in excrement treatment and pollution resources in Beijing are as serious as those in Zhang Jiakou.

Hebei is regarded as a resource for drinking water in Beijing. However, there are no signs to show that Beijing will initiate the communication with Hebei for the sake of protection of water resources. Who should be responsible for the protection of reservoirs in Beijing, Hebei or Beijing?

After calculation, I found that the figures Mr. Jiang quoted are baseless. Is it possible to just spend 500 yuan (70 US dollars) for water retention on every mu of land? If so, Beijing should have funded many similar projects in neighboring areas.

Also we have to recognize that the gap in economic strength between Zhang Jiakou and Beijing is expanding. Many counties in Zhang Jiakou are still very poor. So what we need to consider and discuss is how to achieve sustainable and harmonious development in both Zhang Jiakou and Beijing without ignoring the fact of widening gap between the two.

What I would like to suggest are more funding from Beijing to ensure ecosystem improvement in Zhang Jiakou, no more giant industrial projects allowed in Zhang Jiakou, no more vehicles running on the road, and etc.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

教育

喂,JJ,你说我们应该教育谁呢?老百姓,政府,还是外国?或者他们全部?教育应该把重点放在节约用水吗?在中国,老百姓没有多少权利,所以教育他们不会起到多少作用。我仍然认为问题的解决办法是海水淡化,这将成为中国政府和外国的一致追求。所有中国的水坝和调水工程花费数十亿并且需要很长的时间。但是这些水到不了数以百万的偏远地区。海水淡化的研究和发展应该在政策上得到更多的资金支持,因为中国没有足够的水。
结尾--乍得

re: educate

Hey JJ, Who are you saying we should educate: the people, the government, or foreign nations? Or do you mean all of these groups? Would the education focus on using less water? I dont think the people have much power in China, so i dont know how much progress will be made from educating them. I still think the problem needs to be solved with desalinization, which will be pursued by the Chinese government and foreign nations. All of Chinas dams and water diversion projects cost billions and take seriously long amounts of time. This water will not even reach millions of rural residents. Research and development in desalinization should receive higher funds in policy decisions because China does not have enough water. End of story.

- Chad

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

回复8号评论员

您的建议很好。首先声明我不代表北京市,也没有指责河北省的意思,我仅代表我个人观点。您的建议和我的思考有共同的地方,我的核心观点是通过生态的办法能够解决上游的面源污染,但是这个做法并没有实施,而是花的了很多钱做了偏离保护水源的事情。上游农民的生活问题需要考虑,上游缺少的是钞票,有机种植的产品下游市民急需,更需要清洁的水,这两个东西都是可以卖钱的。围绕水源保护,我们没有形成一个好的市场体制,可以尝试,即北京市或国家投入一定是试验示范费用,推进这个工作。根据我们在内蒙古和山东的经验,一些问题不是不能做,而是愿不愿意做的问题,是我们的治理是否考虑到了最直接的当事人--农牧民的问题。不发动群众通过市场的调节主动介入生态治理或水源保护,是很难行得通的。这个问题恰恰是被决策者忽视的。由于部门利益高于国家利益和社会利益,费用的浪费就不可避免。供参考。蒋高明

Reply to the author of comment No.8

You make a good point. First I would like to clarify that I didn’t speak for Beijing municipal government. And I didn’t mean to point a finger of blame at Hebei government in this article. I only voiced some personal views on this issue.

Your suggestions share some common ground with mine. The core of my viewpoint is to solve the non-point pollution in the upper reaches of the rivers through ecological means. But in reality, these measures are ignored and money is spent elsewhere rather than where it is needed. No doubt the livelihood of farmers upstream should be taken into account. While urban residents downstream desperately need both clean water and organic farming product, both of which can be sold at a price. Beijing or the central government should launch some pilot program to help establish a market mechanism concerning water resources protection. Our experiences in Inner Mongolia and Shandong province show this is a matter of willingness, rather than feasibility. Policy-makers simply don’t realize the fact that popular involvement through market mechanism is the key to the solution of ecological restoration and water resource protection. –Jiang gaoming