【作者】 刘春兴；

【导师】 骆有庆；

【作者基本信息】 北京林业大学 ， 森林保护， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 极少数外来或本土的昆虫、病原体、啮齿动物或杂草等林业有害生物直接或间接地危害森林中的木本植物,进而损害森林生态系统的整体结构或功能,带来严重的经济、社会和生态等损失。我国是世界上少数几个森林生物灾害最严重的国家之一,但在森林生物灾害的基础研究、灾害管理与灾害法制等方面落后于发达国家,亟待改进。本文运用自然灾害科学基本原理,从致灾因子、孕灾环境和承灾体三方面对其进行系统分析,认为森林生物灾害是致灾因子危险性、孕灾环境稳定性和承灾体脆弱性共同作用的结果,是客观的自然表象与主观的人为评价的统一森林生物灾害致灾因子分为内生和外生致灾因子两大类。内生致灾因子与森林生态系统中的其他生物和非生物组分一起构成了森林生物灾害孕灾环境稳定性管理论域,外生致灾因子(外来种)则是森林生物灾害致灾因子管理的主题。森林生物灾害致灾因子的危险性从历史上看呈现日益加重的趋势,其评估方法主要有田野调查法、遥感评估法、形成机理评估法、专家访谈法、邻域类比法等,并据此可把林业有害生物划分为四级。引起森林生物灾害致灾因子发生的致灾行为具有负的外部性,应通过多种内部化措施予以矫正。消除或降低致灾因子危险性的管理对策主要包括森林植物检疫措施和致灾因子种群灭除或控制措施等。森林生物灾害孕灾环境依不同标准可有针叶林与阔叶林；天然林与人工林；乡土林与非乡土林等划分。森林生物灾害孕灾环境的稳定性从历史上看呈现日益下降的趋势,其评估方法主要有生态系统稳定性、近自然度和森林健康等思路。森林是一种典型的公共物品,森林生物灾害孕灾环境具有正的外部性,应通过多种内部化措施予以改进。提高森林生物灾害孕灾环境稳定性主要有生态系统管理、近自然林经营和森林健康措施等生物孕灾环境管理对策,以及应对全球气候变化、土地利用规划和环境污染控制等非生物孕灾环境管理对策。森林向人类提供经济价值(狭义)、社会和生态价值等多种不可或缺的价值体系,依其可拥有性的不同,相关受益人群分为特定受益人、不特定受益人和人类整体三类,由此森林生物灾害承灾体就有了特定承灾体、区域承灾体和全球承灾体之分。人类对森林的各类依存行为导致了森林生物灾害承灾体的脆弱性,它在历史上呈现出一种总体上逐渐升高的趋势,这种脆弱性可由物理暴露性(Ve)、灾损敏感性(Vs)和应灾能力(Vd)等指标来加以评估。降低森林生物灾害承灾体的脆弱性应针对三类承灾体的特点而采取不同的管理对策：针对特定承灾体的森林生物灾害保险、资金支持和技术指导等；针对区域承灾体的区域合作、生态补偿和转移支付等；针对全球承灾体的国际合作、发展援助和国际志愿者行动等。森林生物灾害管理的理论与实践先后经历了主要针对致灾因子、兼顾孕灾环境以及灾害系统管理三个阶段。在对森林生物灾害成因进行了系统分析,对自然灾害系统管理的一般原理进行了简要介绍,并对森林生物灾害的管理客体进行了详细探讨的基础上,本文提出了森林生物灾害系统管理的基本框架,它由森林生物灾害管理目标、管理主体(体制)、管理客体、管理环境、管理过程和管理法规等六部分组成。法律是森林生物灾害管理工作中不可或缺的政策工具,宪法、法律(狭义)、行政法规、部门规章、地方性法规和国际法律文件等规范性法律文件的部分或全部条款是森林生物灾害法制的主要法律渊源,共同组成了一个可分解为立法目标、基本原则、基本概念、主要制度、保障机制等方面的森林生物灾害法制体系,在当前的森林生物灾害管理中发挥着重要作用,但存在许多不足之处。应通过基于森林生物灾害系统管理的现有法律解释性适用、现有法律修改以及制定新法律等三种森林生物灾害系统管理法制化的方法予以改进。法律在森林生物灾害管理中的局限性、森林生物灾害法制落实的困难性以及某种程度上的森林生物灾害不可避免性是森林生物灾害法制中应注意的三个边缘问题。本文的新颖之处在于把一般意义的自然灾害学原理应用于森林生物灾害这一特殊灾种,为一直局限于传统的森林保护学科视域内的森林生物灾害(病虫害)现象提供了一个新的观察视角和解释框架,是一种典型的“旧现象新方法”的研究范式创新,具体表现在以下三点：基于自然灾害系统分析的森林生物灾害成因新解释；基于自然灾害系统管理的森林生物灾害管理新思路；基于森林生物灾害系统管理的森林生物灾害法制的新框架。更多还原

【Abstract】 A very small number of alien or native forest pests, such as insects, pathogens, rodents or weeds, damaging woody plants either directly or indirectly and causing damage to forest ecosystems as a whole both in structure or in function, finally result in enormous economic, social and ecological loss. China, as one of few countries most seriously suffering from forest biological disasters (FBD), lags behind the developed countries in basic research, management and legislations of FBD, which creates an urgent need to improve them.This paper, employing the basic principles of general natural disaster, makes a systematic analysis of FBD by means of a three-element framework of hazard-causing factor(HCF), hazard-containing environment(HCE) and hazard-bearing body(HBB). A conclusion has been drawn that FBD is a result of co-action of the risk of HCF, the stability of HCE and the vulnerability of HBB as a union of an objective appearance of natural phenomenon and a subjective human evaluation.FBD hazard-causing factor can be roughly divided into endogenous and exogenous hazard factors. The former, among other biological and non-biological components in forest ecosystem, constitute the domain of discourse for the management of the stability of HCE, but the latter (alien species) are the key of management of HCF in FBD. In history the risk of HCF showed itself in an increasing trend, and its evaluating methods mainly include field survey method, remote sensing assessment method, the formation mechanism of evaluation, expert interviews, neighborhood analogy, etc., and therefore forest pests can be divided into four grades. FBD hazard-causing acts with negative externalities should be rectified by internalization through a variety of measures. The management strategies to eliminate or reduce the risk of HCF include mainly forest plant quarantine measures and the elimination or control of populations of HCF.FBD hazard-containing environment has the division of coniferous vs. broad-leaved; natural vs. planted; native vs. non-native forest. The stability of HCE of FBD historically presented declining trend, and its assessment methods include ecosystem stability, closeness to natural forest and forest health etc. Forest, as a typical kind of public goods, blesses the hazard-containing environment of FBD with positive externalities. This creates an impetus to internalize them through a variety of measures. To enhance the stability of HCE there are measures such as biological environment strategies in ecosystem management, close-to-natural-forest management and forest health measures; and non-biological environment strategies such as anti-globalwarming measures, land use planning, and environmental pollution control.Forests provide an indispensable value system which consists of economic(narrowly), social and ecological ones. According to their possibility of being shared, relevant beneficiary population is divided into specific beneficiaries, non-specific beneficiaries and overall human, thus the HBB have a division of particular, regional and global ones. The human dependence upon forest leads to the vulnerability of HBB, which historically showed an overall trend of gradually rising. This vulnerability can be assessed by such indicators as physical exposure (Ve), disaster loss sensitivity (Vs) and disaster response capacity (Vd). To reduce this vulnerability, measures should be adopted according to the characteristics of three HBB:disaster insurance, financial support and technical guidance, etc. for a particular HBB; Regional cooperation, ecological compensation and transfer payments, etc. for a regional HBB; International cooperation, development aid and international volunteer operations for a global HBB.The theory and practice of FBD management has undergone three phases in which people first mainly focused HCF, then notice HCE, and now pay more attention to the systematic management of FBD. Based upon a systematic analysis of the causes of FBD, a brief introduction to the general principles of the systematic management of natural disasters, and a detailed discussion of the three managing objects, this paper gives a general framework of the systematic management of FBD. This consists of managing objectives, managing subjects (system), managing objects, managing environments, managing process, and managing regulations.Law is an indispensable policy tool in FBD management. Some, or all, of provisions in normative legal documents such as Constitution, laws (narrowly), administrative regulations, departmental rules and regulations, local regulations, and international legal documents, constitute the major legal sources for the FBD legal system. These can cover the legal aims, the basic principles, the basic concepts, the main institutions, and the guarantee mechanism. Though the legal system plays an important role in the current management of FBD, there are many shortcomings. which can be improved through the three legalizing ways based on the systematic management of FBD:reinterpretating the existing law, modifying the current law and developing new laws. The limitations of the functions of law in the management of FBD, the difficulty of implementing the FBD legislations, and the inevitability of FBD to a certain degree, are three marginal issues that should be taken into account in the FBD legislation.The innovative points of this dissertation lie in the fact that the basic principles of science of disaster in general have been employed to deal with the FBD as a special one, and that a new viewpoint and framework of FBD traditionally discussed within the theory of forest protection has been given out, which is a typical innovation as "old phenomenon-new method". Put specificly, here are the following three points: a new interpretation of FBD cause based upon the systemtic analysis disaster in general, a new idea of FBD management based upon the systematic management of disaster in general, and a new framework of FBD legislation based upon the systematic management of disaster in general.更多还原