基于河流健康及国际法的跨境水分配关键指标及阈值

doi:10.11821/dlxb201501010

地理学报 ›› 2015, Vol. 70 ›› Issue (1): 121-130.doi: 10.11821/dlxb201501010

基于河流健康及国际法的跨境水分配关键指标及阈值

冯彦^1,²(), 何大明^1,², 王文玲^1,²

1. 云南大学亚洲国际河流中心,昆明 650091
2. 云南省国际河流与跨境生态安全重点实验室,昆明 650091

收稿日期:2014-10-08 修回日期:2014-11-03 出版日期:2015-01-20 发布日期:2015-01-20
作者简介:
作者简介：冯彦(1967-), 女, 研究员, 主要从事国际河流水资源利用与管理研究。E-mail: fengyan@ynu.edu.cn
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金重点项目(U1202232);国家社会科学基金重点项目(11AZD04);国家科技支撑计划课题(2013BAB06B03,2011BAC09B07);国家自然科学基金项目(40971091)

Key indicators and the thresholds of trans-boundary water allocation based on river health and international treaties

Yan FENG^1,²(), Daming HE^1,², Wenling WANG^1,²

1. Asian International Rivers Center, Yunnan University, Kunming 650091, China
2. Yunnan Key Lab of International Rivers and Trans-boundary Eco-security, Kunming 650091, China

Received:2014-10-08 Revised:2014-11-03 Published:2015-01-20 Online:2015-01-20
Supported by:
Key Project of National Nature Science Foundation of China, No.U1202232;Key Project of National Social Science Foundation of China, No.11AZD04;National Science and Technology Support Program, No.2013BAB06B03,2011BAC09B07;National Nature Science Foundation of China, No.40971091

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

基于前期研究中获得的8个河流健康主要评价指标、3个主要跨境水分配指标的结果以及指标之间的相关性,确定了河流健康和跨境水分配的关键指标：多年平均水量、最大取用水量和最小维持水量。跟踪查询《国际淡水条约数据库》内1864-2002年应用3个关键指标的38个国际条约及其所涉及28条国际河流的主要水文信息,通过对条约中水分配指标的标准化计算和分析,得到各指标阈值及其区域性特征：① 最小维持水量指标得到普遍应用,其次是多年平均水量指标,而最大取用水量指标应用率明显低于前两个指标。② 应用多年平均水量指标,在界河上基本确定了平均分配方案,阈值为50%;“内河”属性支流的阈值为100%;跨境河流上产生了较多的差额分配方案和较多的上游国用水多于下游国的方案。③ 最小维持水量指标,其应用有从发达地区向发展中地区扩展、从保证用水向维持生态用水发展的特点;当该指标在跨境和界河的河流尺度上用于保证供水时,该指标阈值平均分别为41.7%和50%,且流域国家实力对其影响极为明显,而在跨境河流河段尺度上阈值平均为36.1%;用于维持河道生态水量时,阈值平均为14.7%,并有逐步增长的趋势。

关键词: 跨境水分配, 关键指标, 阈值, 河流健康, 国际法

Abstract:

In the paper, according to the revealed major indicators on river health assessment and of transboundary water allocation in the preliminary studies, after the correlations among them were analyzed, the key indicators of transboundary water allocation and of healthy riverwere finally confirmed, as: mean annual runoff, maximum water intake, and minimum maintained water volume. Based on 38 international treaties related to water allocation in 1864-2002 adopting the 3 key indicators, some key hydrological data of the 28 rivers covered by the treaties from various publications were looked up, the values of the 3 key indicators were standardized and calculated, and the thresholds and the regional characteristics of them were analyzed. The results were as follows: (1) Among the 3 key indicators, "minimum maintained water volume" was most widely adopted, and "maximum water intake" was the one with the lowest adoption. (2) From the adoption of mean annual runoff, for the frontier rivers, the basic scheme of water allocation was equal allocation, and the threshold was 50%; for the tributary, which was totally within one country, the threshold was 100%; for transboundary rivers, there were more schemes with a different allocation, and more ones with a greater share for an upstream country. (3) As for the indicator of “minimum maintained water volume”, its adoption showed the extending tendencies from the developed regions to the developing ones, and from maintaining water supply for downstream countries to keeping ecological water demand. When it was used for maintaining water supply, at the river scale, the average thresholds were 41.7% on transboundary rivers and 50% on frontier ones, respectively, which were obviously affected by riparian countries’ strength, while at the reach scale, the average threshold was 36.1% on transboundary rivers. When it was used for keeping water flow in watercourse, the average value of the thresholds was 14.7%, with an increasing tendency.

Key words: transboundary water allocation, key indicator, threshold, river health, international treaties

冯彦, 何大明, 王文玲. 基于河流健康及国际法的跨境水分配关键指标及阈值[J]. 地理学报, 2015, 70(1): 121-130.

Yan FENG, Daming HE, Wenling WANG. Key indicators and the thresholds of trans-boundary water allocation based on river health and international treaties[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2015, 70(1): 121-130.

图/表 3

表1

表2

表3

参考文献 41

[1]	European Community.Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Official Journal of the European Communities, 2000: 1-72.
[2]	Parsons M, Ransom G,Thoms M et al. Australian river assessment system: AusRivAS physical and chemical assessment module. Canberra: Environmental Australia, 2001, 1-47.
[3]	Clarke R T, Wright J F, Furse M T.RIVPACS models for predicting the expected macro-invertebrate fauna and assessing the ecological quality of rivers. Ecological Modeling, 2003, 160: 219-233.
[4]	Kamp U, Binder W, Holzl K.River habitat monitoring and assessment in Germany. Environment Monitor Assessment, 2007, 127: 209-226.
[5]	Anton Earle, Anders Jagerskog, Joakim Ojendal.Transboundary water management: principles and practice. Landon and Washtington DC: Earthscan, 2010.
[6]	UNEP, GEFet al. Challenges to International Waters: Regional assessments in a global perspective (the Global International Waters Assessment Final Report). The University of Kalmar and the Municipality of Kalmar, Sweden, and the Governments of Sweden, Finland and Norway, 2006.
[7]	Ines Dombrowsky. Conflict, Cooperation and Institutions in International Water Management: An Economic Analysis .Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2007.
[8]	Claudia W. Sadoff, David Grey.Beyond the river: The benefits of cooperation on international rivers. Water Policy, 2002, (4): 389-403.
[9]	Sakhiwe N. Pieter Z.Equitable water allocation in a heavily committed international catchment area: The case of the Komati Catchment. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 2004, 29: 1309-1317.
[10]	Pieter van der Zaag, I M Seyam, Hubert H G Savenije. Towards measurable criteria for the equitable sharing of international water resources. Water Policy, 2004, (4): 19-32.
[11]	Juha I.U. Multi-country cooperation around shared waters. Global Environmental Change. 2004, 14: 5-14.
[12]	Rob de Loe. Sharing the waters of the Red river basin.2009-03-31. Prepared for International Red Rivers Board, International Joint Commission. Guelph, On: Rob deLoë Consulting Services.
[13]	Ayþegül Kibaroðlu., 2003.
[14]	He Daming, Feng Yan, Chen Lihui et al. Study on the models, principles and index system of transboundary water. Advances in Water Science, 2005, 16(2): 96-103.
	[何大明, 冯彦, 陈丽晖等. 跨境水资源的分配模式、原则和指标体系研究. 水科学进展, 2005, 16(2): 96-103.]
[15]	Feng Yan, He Daming, Gan Shu et al. Linkages of transboundary water allocation and its eco-thresholds with international laws. Chinese Science Bulletin, 2006. 51(Suppl.): 25-32.
	[冯彦, 何大明, 甘淑等. 跨境水分配及其生态阈值与国际法的关联. 科学通报, 2006, 51(增刊): 21-26.]
[16]	He Daming, Wu Ruidong, Feng Yan et al. China’s transboundary waters: new paradigms for water and ecological security through applied ecology. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2014, 51: 1159-1168.
[17]	Shlomi Dinar.International Water Treaties: Negotiation and Cooperation along Transboundary Rivers. New York and Oxon: Routledge, 2008.
[18]	Lynne Lewis Bennett.The integration of water quality into transboundary allocation agreements: Lessons from the southwestern United States. Agricultural Economics, 2000, 24: 113-125.
[19]	Kong Linjie, Tian Xiangrong.Study on International Water-related Treaties and Laws. Beijing: China Water Power Press, 2011.
	[孔令杰, 田向荣. 国际涉水条法研究. 北京: 中国水利水电出版社, 2011.]
[20]	Feng Yan, Kang Bin, Yang Liping.Feasibility analysis of widely accepted indicators as key ones in river health assessment. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2012, 22(1): 46-56.
[21]	Feng Yan, He Daming, Li Yungang.The key indicators of transboundary water apportionment based on international laws and cases. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2013, 23(4): 710-720.
[22]	Yang Zhifeng, Cui Baoshan, Liu Jingling.Theory, Method and Practice of Eco-environmental Water Requirement. Beijing: Science Press, 2003.
	[杨志峰, 崔保山, 刘静玲. 生态环境需水量理论、方法与实践. 北京: 科学出版社, 2003.]
[23]	Acreman M, Dunbar M J.Defining environmental river flow requirements: A review. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 2004, 8(5): 861-876.
[24]	Pranab Jumar Parua.The Ganga: Water Use in the Indian Subcontinent. Dordrecht: Springer, 2010.
[25]	Economic commission for Europe. Chapter 8 Drainage basin of the Baltic Sea//Our Waters: Joining Hands across Borders (First Assessment of Transboundary Rivers, Lakes and Groundwaters). New York and Geneva: United Nations, 2007.
[26]	John Krijnen.Environment Impact Assessment: Kassla-Hamashkhobeib Integrated Assistance Programme. Geneva: Canadian Red Cross, 2008.
[27]	Tapan Chakraborty, Parthasarathi Ghosh.The geomorphology and sedimentology of the Tista Megafan, Darjeeling Himalaya: Implications for megafan building processes. Geomorphology, 2010, 115: 252-266.
[28]	Nurual Islam, Ashfaque Azam, Islam Q R..
[29]	Walter Binder, .
[30]	Drainage Basin of the Black Sea.
[31]	Kartecxka J Pociask, Czulak J, Niedbala J et al. Model assessing changes of the Raba river runoff caused by the Dobcayce reservoir (Poland). Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 2003, 12(4): 485-488.
[32]	Bruce J P, Martin H, Colucci P., 2003.
[33]	UN Mission Report., 2000.
[34]	Iwan Tejakusuma.Investigations into the hydrography and dynamics of suspended particulate matter and sediments in the Oder Lagoon, southern Baltic Sea. Rostock: Leibniz-Institut fur Ostseeforschung Warnemunde, 2004.
[35]	Krepper C M, Garcia N O, Jones P D.Inter-annual variability in the Uruguay River Basin. International Journal of Climatology, 2003, 23: 103-115.
[36]	Sommerwerk N, Hein T, Schneider-Jakoby M et al. The Danube River Basin//Tockner K, Uehlinger U, Robinson C T. Rivers of Europe. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, 2009: 59-112.
[37]	Sarig Gafny, Samer Talozi, , 2010.
[38]	The Turkish Ministry of Foreign AffairsDepartment of Regional and Transboundary Waters. Water issues between Turkey, Syria and Iraq. , , 2012.
[39]	Inventory of Shared Water Resources in Western Asia: Chapter 8 Nahr El Kabir Basin.
[40]	Zhu Dexiang.The significance and practice of researches on the international rivers. Geographical Research, 1993, 12(4): 85-77.
	[朱德祥. 国际河流研究的意义与发展. 地理研究, 1993, 12(4): 85-77.]
[41]	Walter Binder, .

区域	国际河流				应用关键指标的分水条约、河流、国家及其占所在区域比例
	条约数（个）		数量（条）	国家（个）	条约			国际河流			涉及国家
	条约数（个）	数量（个）	数量（条）	国家（个）			比例（%）		数量（个）	比例（%）	数量（个）	比例（%）
北美	91	40	12		7	8%		6	15%		3	25%
欧洲	215	69	39		10	5%		9	13%		14	36%
亚洲	86	57	35		16	19%		10	18%		16	43%
非洲	80	59	48		4	5%		2	3%		6	13%
南美	50	38	13		1	2%		1	3%		3	23%
全球	522	263	147		38	7%		28	11%		42^※	28%

区域	时间(年)	用多年平均水量指标的条约数(个)	用最大取用水量指标的条约数(个)	用最小维持水量指标的条约数(个)	条约数合计(个)
北美	1909-2000	6	4	5	7
欧洲	1864-1998	4	1	6	10
亚洲	1957-2002	11	2	9	16
非洲	1959-1992	3	1	4	4
南美	1979			1	1
条约数合计(个)	1864-2002	24	8	25	38

地区	分水点	河流属性	多年平均水量指标阈值及条约				最大取用水量指标阈值及条约			最小水量指标阈值及条约
地区	分水点	河流属性	国1阈值（%）		国2阈值（%）		条约数（个）	阈值（%）	条约数（个）	阈值（%）	条约数（个）
北美	河段	内河1	100, 0	0,100	2		100	2
		内河2	66.7	33.3	1					33.3	1
		跨境1	75,25	25,75	2		75	2		25	2
		跨境2	50	50	3					40	1
		跨境3	55	45	1
	河流	界河	50	50	2		29.5, 53	2		25,50	2
	河流	跨境				90		1	10		1
欧洲	河段	界河	50	50	1		50	1		3.6, 15.1	2
	河流	界河	50	50	2					2.3, 8.3,12	3
	河流	跨境	15	85	1				10		1
亚洲	河段	界河	50	50	4		4.9	1		1.7,33.3	2
	河段	跨境	39,42,60	36,58,40	3		20	1		15.4,25,40,50,80	5
	河流	跨境1	50	50	3					37.3,39.4	2
		跨境2	53.3	46.7	2
		界湖	60	40	1
非洲	河段	跨境	55.8,66.3,80.7,88.6	38.1,31.6,7.7,4.2	2		3.6	1		2.1,6.1,7.2,11.6,66.7	3
非洲	河流	跨境	21.5	64.5	1					14	1
南美	河段	界河								29	1

基于河流健康及国际法的跨境水分配关键指标及阈值

Key indicators and the thresholds of trans-boundary water allocation based on river health and international treaties

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

被引次数

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 3

参考文献 41

相关文章 7

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	张琨, 吕一河, 傅伯杰, 尹礼唱, 于丹丹. 黄土高原植被覆盖变化对生态系统服务影响及其阈值[J]. 地理学报, 2020, 75(5): 949-960.
[2]	刘焱序, 傅伯杰, 王帅, 赵文武, 李琰. 空间恢复力理论支持下的人地系统动态研究进展[J]. 地理学报, 2020, 75(5): 891-903.
[3]	冯彦, 何大明, 李运刚. 基于国际法的跨境水分配关键指标及其特征[J]. 地理学报, 2013, 68(3): 357-364.
[4]	杜鸿, 夏军, 曾思栋, 佘敦先, 张永勇, 严子奇. 淮河流域极端径流的时空变化规律及统计模拟[J]. 地理学报, 2012, 67(3): 398-409.
[5]	刘昌明, 刘晓燕. 河流健康理论初探[J]. 地理学报, 2008, 63(7): 683-692.
[6]	全华,陈田,杨竹莘. 张家界水环境演变与旅游发展关系[J]. 地理学报, 2002, 57(5): 619-624.
[7]	郑度, 申元村. 坡地过程及退化坡地恢复整治研究——以三峡库区紫色土坡地为例[J]. 地理学报, 1998, 53(2): 116-122.