水电开发的生态环境影响经济损益分析——以怒江中下游为例

水电工程的规模和特点决定了它对环境的影响特别重大,这种影响有正效益和负效益两个方面。水电开发的环境影响评价理论和方法在世界范围内都是一个在不断探索、发展和完善的科学问题。本文以怒江中下游水电开发规划为例,通过怒江水电开发规划环境影响因子的筛选和环境影响的定量分析,对开发方案的长期和整体的环境影响效益和成本进行估算,即估算项目实施后年环境成本和效益流量。评价结果表明,怒江中下游4级水电开发的直接环境效益为2.77×108元/a,环境成本总值约为3.96×108。评价结果中,直接环境效益和环境成本的比值为1∶1.4,环境影响的净现值为-1.19×108元/a;限于目前环境损益分析技术和方法还不太成熟,部分指标如怒江水电开发对文化多样性、陆生生物、水生生物等的影响,还无法找到有充分说服力的评价方法,从而使评价结果的完整性和准确性受到一定的影响。作为辅助决策依据,决策者应根据多方面的因素,综合考虑,以做出充分合理的判断和决策。     

Direct seeding and outplantings in drylands of Argentinean Patagonia: estimated costs,and prospects for large‐scale restoration and rehabilitation

In large areas of the world that are deeply scarred by desertification and hampered by low capacity for natural regeneration, the scaling up of ecological restoration and rehabilitation can be achieved only if it is low in cost with high return on investment, and shows promise of providing long‐lasting social‐economic as well as ecological benefits. In the Monte Austral region of Patagonia Argentina, concerted efforts are underway to facilitate scaling up of ecological restoration and rehabilitation practices. Here, we evaluate financial costs and preliminary results of direct seeding as compared to outplanting of nursery‐grown seedlings of three native species (Atriplex lampa, Senecio subulatus var. subulatus, and Hyalis argentea var. latisquama) considered to be high‐priority dryland framework species. Comparative success is expressed in terms of plant survival and in monetary terms. The three candidate species showed low survival rates, ranging from 4.3 to 22.3%, after the first summer following direct seeding. In contrast, survival rates for planted seedlings of the same three taxa varied between 84 and 91%, after the first summer following reintroduction. However, cost of direct seeding varied between 1,693 and 1,772 US$ less per hectare, that is, 64% less than the cost of outplanting nursery seedlings. Therefore, in the search for ways to scale up ecological restoration and rehabilitation in drylands, direct seeding should receive more attention. We discuss the social and ecological perspectives and the way forward for direct seeding techniques in Patagonia. We also consider how costs could be reduced and effectiveness improved in large‐scale efforts.