China: The South-North Water Transfer Project— is it justified?
China: The South-North Water Transfer Project— is it justified?
复制标题
DOI：
10.2166/wp.2003.0001
复制
发表时间：
2003-02
期刊：
影响因子：
1.6
通讯作者：
J. Berkoff
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Berkoff
南水北调工程（SNWTP）如果得到充分开发，每年可从长江流域向华北平原调水40 - 50 km 3，缓解3亿-3.25亿人口的缺水问题，即使到那时，华北地区仍将是一个高度缺水的地区。下一阶段的工程将于二零零二至零三年度展开，工程费用约为170亿元（包括70亿元的辅助费用），为最多20立方公里的道路改道。世界银行最近的一项研究表明，该项目具有经济吸引力。世界自然基金会（现在的世界自然基金会）对这一结论提出了质疑。本文的结论是，几乎没有信心可以放在这些分析。因此，本报告试图阐明该项目如何适应更广泛的区域和农业发展背景。该项目耗资巨大，而且在边际上往往会保护低价值农业的水资源，并需要重新安置30多万人。另一方面，中国社会经济变化的速度和规模是史无前例的，华北平原的调整问题因水资源短缺而大大加剧。将灌溉用水重新分配给市政和工业用途或环境会造成社会分裂，在某些情况下实际上是不可行的。转移项目将大大缓解这些困难。正是这些论点（归根结底是政治性和务实的），而不是完全基于经济或粮食安全关切的论点，使政府决定继续进行该项目完全可以理解。
The South‐North Water Transfer Project (SNWTP), if fully developed, could divert 40‐50 km 3 /yr from the Yangtse basin to the North China plain, alleviating water scarcity for 300‐325M people living in what even then will be a highly water-stressed region. Construction of the next stage, diverting up to 20 km 3 at a cost of about $17,000M (including $7000M in ancillary costs), is to start in 2002/3. A recent World Bank study suggests that the project is economically attractive. This conclusion has been disputed by the World Wildlife Fund (now the Worldwide Fund for Nature). This paper concludes that little confidence can be placed in either of these analyses. It therefore seeks to throw light on how the project fits within a broader regional and agricultural development setting. The project is hugely expensive, and would at the margin tend to preserve water in low value agriculture and require the resettlement of upwards of 300,000 people. On the other hand, the pace and scale of socioeconomic change in China are without precedent, and adjustment problems on the North China plain are greatly exacerbated by water scarcity. Reallocation of water from irrigation to municipal and industrial uses or to the environment is socially divisive and in some instances physically impracticable. The transfer project would greatly alleviate these difficulties. It is these arguments (which are ultimately political and pragmatic), rather than those based strictly on economic or food security concerns, that make the Government’s decision to proceed with the project fully understandable.