生物多样性 ›› 2024, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (4): 23454.  DOI: 10.17520/biods.2023454

• 保护与治理对策 • 上一篇    下一篇

论建立中国自然保护兼用地的必要性和可行性

杨锐1,2*,侯姝彧3,张引4,赵智聪1,2   

  1. 1. 清华大学国家公园研究院, 北京 100084; 2.  清华大学建筑学院景观学系, 北京 100084; 3. 华南农业大学林学与风景园林学院, 广州  51064; 4. 重庆大学建筑城规学院, 重庆 400045

  • 收稿日期:2023-11-30 修回日期:2024-01-25 出版日期:2024-04-20 发布日期:2024-03-28
  • 通讯作者: 杨锐

The necessity and feasibility of constructing conservation compatible land in China

Rui Yang1,2*,Shuyu Hou3,Yin Zhang4,Zhicong Zhao1,2   

  1. 1. Institute for National Parks, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084
    2. Department of Landscape Architecture, School of Architecture, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084
    3. College of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642
    4. School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045
  • Received:2023-11-30 Revised:2024-01-25 Online:2024-04-20 Published:2024-03-28
  • Contact: Rui Yang

摘要: 联合国《生物多样性公约》第十五次缔约方大会(COP15)提出“30×30”目标,呼吁到2030年保护全球30%的陆地和海洋面积。目前自然保护地覆盖率不足、拓展空间有限、与其他土地类型兼容性有限,实现生物多样性全面有效保护的目标不能仅仅依靠自然保护地。然而,国际上提倡的“其他基于区域的有效保护措施”(other effective area-based conservation measures, OECMs)尚存较多局限,与我国实际情况的适配性不足,难以直接指导我国自然保护地体系外就地保护实践。中国需要尽快建立一套与当前自然保护地相互补充的、符合中国国情的就地保护体系。基于此,本研究提出“自然保护兼用地”(conservation compatible land, CCL)的概念——“由各类主体申请、各级政府依法确认,以保护和利用相兼容的管理方式,对高生物多样性地区进行长期、有效保护的陆域或水域”,作为我国自然保护地外的就地保护措施。本研究对CCL的内涵、定位、特征进行初步界定,并从法律政策和管理实践方面论述其可行性。未来我国的国土空间布局应包含自然保护专用地(自然保护地和生态保护红线)、CCL(兼有生物多样性保护以及农林渔牧、文化、生活等其他使用功能)以及可持续利用地(其他生产与生活用地)三大类。CCL有助于整合我国现有的自然保护地体系外的保护措施,全面系统认识自然保护地外的就地保护措施的作用,梳理经验、推广实践、整合资源、扩大影响。未来可进一步形成多层次、多梯度、保护与利用统筹协调的全域土地利用空间格局,使每一寸中国国土都兼顾保护与发展功能。本研究旨为中国自然保护地外的就地保护实践提供理论依据,并为全球“30×30”生物多样性保护目标贡献中国智慧与中国方案。

关键词: 生态文明, 国土空间规划, 可持续发展, OECMs, 适应性管理

Abstract

Background & Aims: The 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (COP15) put forward the “30 × 30” target, calling for the protection of 30% of the world’s land and sea area by 2030. As one of the countries with the richest biodiversity in the world, China’s protected areas currently have problems such as insufficient protection coverage, lack of connectivity, insufficient expansion space, and limited compatibility with other land types, and it’s challenging to achieve the global goal of biodiversity conservation. Meanwhile, other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) advocated internationally still have many limitations, and their adaptability to the actual situation in China is insufficient, which makes it difficult to directly guide the practice of in-situ conservation outside the protected area system in China. China needs to establish an in-situ conservation system that complements the current protected areas and is in line with China’s national conditions as soon as possible. The purpose of this study is to provide a theoretical basis for the practice of in-situ conservation outside the protected areas in China, and to contribute Chinese wisdom and solutions to the global “30×30” biodiversity conservation goals.

Perspective: We propose the concept of “conservation compatible land” (CCL), which is a land area or water area with long-term and effective protection of high biodiversity areas by the application of various entities and confirmed by governments at all levels in accordance with the law, and the management mode compatible with protection and utilization. In the future, China’s nature-related land management should include three categories: dedicated nature conservation areas (protected areas and ecological protection red lines), CCL (with biodiversity conservation and other use functions such as agriculture, forestry, fishery and animal husbandry, culture, and living), and sustainable use areas (other production and living space). CCL is conducive to the integration of conservation measures outside the protected area system in China, and forms a multi-level, multi-gradient, coordinated spatial pattern of land use, so that every inch of China’s land can take into account both conservation and development functions. 

Key words: Ecological civilization, National spatial planning, Sustainable development, OECMs, Adaptive management