江苏省12大湖泊水环境现状与污染控制建议

江苏面积大于50km^2的12个湖泊的水质恶化、面积减少、富营养化、湖泊生态系统退化与湖泊受TP、TN的污染和围湖造田等有关。经济快速发展,第二产业结构偏重,排放污染的总量超过湖泊承载力,湖泊底泥释放N、P及入糊河流携带污染物为造成湖泊环境问题的根本原因。建议调整产业结构,执行严格的排放标准,围绕重点区域、重点行业、重点企业和重点污染源治理,由控制COD为主转为控制COD和N、P并重,引水调控水质,建立湖泊资源数据库和生态系统信息网络,开展湖泊污染物来源分析和富营养化机理研究,开展跨界区域统筹对湖泊综合治理。     

开放市场条件下四川省环保系统各级环境监测站的发展方向

加入WTO后四川省环保系统监测站如何克服自身缺陷,积极应对国内外监测机构的挑战,是未来几年内各监测站所共同面临的问题。本文回顾了我省监测站监测能力现状,分析了入世后各级环境监测站所面对的形势,并结合四川省实际情况提出了我省环保系统环境监测站在开放市场条件下的发展重点和发展方向。     

从环境立法进程展望中国大气污染防治战略的发展方向2002年9月12日在能源与环境中美研讨会上的讲话

本文从中国环境立法，特别是再次修改《大气污染防治法》等展望中国大气污染防治的重要战略方向。     

Implications of different population model structures for management of threatened plants

Population viability analysis (PVA) is a reliable tool for ranking management options for a range of species despite parameter uncertainty. No one has yet investigated whether this holds true for model uncertainty for species with complex life histories and for responses to multiple threats. We tested whether a range of model structures yielded similar rankings of management and threat scenarios for 2 plant species with complex postfire responses. We examined 2 contrasting species from different plant functional types: an obligate seeding shrub and a facultative resprouting shrub. We exposed each to altered fire regimes and an additional, species‐specific threat. Long‐term demographic data sets were used to construct an individual‐based model (IBM), a complex stage‐based model, and a simple matrix model that subsumes all life stages into 2 or 3 stages. Agreement across models was good under some scenarios and poor under others. Results from the simple and complex matrix models were more similar to each other than to the IBM. Results were robust across models when dominant threats are considered but were less so for smaller effects. Robustness also broke down as the scenarios deviated from baseline conditions, likely the result of a number of factors related to the complexity of the species’ life history and how it was represented in a model. Although PVA can be an invaluable tool for integrating data and understanding species’ responses to threats and management strategies, this is best achieved in the context of decision support for adaptive management alongside multiple lines of evidence and expert critique of model construction and output.     

Inadvertent advocacy

Policy advocacy is an issue regularly debated among conservation scientists. These debates have focused on intentional policy advocacy by scientists, but advocacy can also be unintentional. I define inadvertent policy advocacy as the act of unintentionally expressing personal policy preferences or ethical judgments in a way that is nearly indistinguishable from scientific judgments. A scientist may be well intentioned and intellectually honest but still inadvertently engage in policy advocacy. There are two ways to inadvertently engage in policy advocacy. First, a scientist expresses an opinion that she or he believes is a scientific judgment but it is actually an ethical judgment or personal policy preference. Second, a scientist expresses an opinion that he or she knows is an ethical judgment or personal policy preference but inadvertently fails to effectively communicate the nature of the opinion to policy makers or the public. I illustrate inadvertent advocacy with three examples: recovery criteria in recovery plans for species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, a scientific peer review of a recovery plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), and the International Union for Conservation of Nature's definition of threatened. In each example, scientists expressed ethical judgments or policy preferences, but their value judgments were not identified as such, and, hence, their value judgments were opaque to policy makers and the public. Circumstances suggest their advocacy was inadvertent. I believe conservation scientists must become acutely aware of the line between science and policy and avoid inadvertent policy advocacy because it is professional negligence, erodes trust in scientists and science, and perpetuates an ethical vacuum that undermines the rational political discourse necessary for the evolution of society's values. The principal remedy for inadvertent advocacy is education of conservation scientists in an effort to help them understand how science and values interact to fulfill the mission of conservation science.