手机新海外
咨询热线:400-006-6150
首页 > 开眼 > 见闻 > 非洲象的保护难题

非洲象的保护难题

頔Cindy

頔Cindy

2019-09-24 16:58:00 阅读864 有趣1

The ban on trading ivory is unfair but necessary

象牙贸易禁令虽不公平,但很有必要

Easing it would bring an increase in poaching

放宽禁令只会导致偷猎的增加


Nearly 6,000 species of animals and about 30,000 species of plants are listed in the various appendices of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) to protect them against over-exploitation. 

《濒危物种国际贸易公约》(CITES)的各个附录共列出了近6000种动物以及近30000种植物,为的是保护它们免受过度开发。

But as CITES convenes its three-yearly decision-making conference in Geneva this month, one animal, as so often in the past, will attract much of the attention: the African elephant.

但是,当CITES本月于日内瓦召开其三年一度的决策大会时,一种过去常被提及的动物将再次吸引人们广泛的关注:它就是非洲象。

The elephant is in many ways CITES’s mascot. It was rescued in 1989 from what seemed inevitable extinction after half the population had been wiped out by poaching in just a decade. That year elephants were included in CITES’s Appendix I, under which virtually all international trade in their products is banned. The slaughter slowed. 

从很多方面来说,大象都是CITES的吉祥物。1989年,仅在短短的10年间,偷猎就导致大象的数量减少了近一半。在那一年,大象被列入了《濒危野生动植物种国际贸易公约》附录一,根据附录一的规定,几乎禁止了所有有关大象相关制品的国际贸易。大象的猎杀有所放缓。

This month’s meeting will consider competing proposals about how absolute the ban should be, since in some countries elephant populations have recovered. Countries seeking a modest relaxation have a strong case to make. But it is not strong enough. The ban must stay.

由于一些国家的大象数量已经有所恢复,本月的会议将就有关禁令执行绝对程度的争议性议案展开讨论。希望禁令适度放宽的国家有着强有力的理由,但理由还不够充分,禁令必须保留。

Understandably, countries that have done a good job protecting their elephants feel this is unfair. They point out that they have devoted huge resources to the elephant, through the costs of law enforcement alone. 

那些在保护大象方面做得很好的国家认为这是不公平的,我们可以理解。他们指出,单单就执法成本,他们就为大象的保护投入了大量资源。

And the real burden of all this is borne by poor local people who are in competition with wildlife for resources, and sometimes in conflict with it—elephants can be destructive. People and governments, so the argument goes, need to have an economic stake in the elephants’ survival. The ivory trade would give them one.

而所有这些其实是由当地的穷苦人民来负担的,他们需要和野生动物争夺资源,有时甚至会和野生动物发生冲突——大象也是具有破坏性的。按照这种观点,人民和政府需要从保护大象生存中获取经济利益。象牙贸易正是给了他们这样一个机会。

That’s why Zambia wants its elephants moved to the slightly less restrictive Appendix II, which would allow some trade in, for example, hunting trophies. 

这就是为什么赞比亚希望把他们国家的大象转移至稍微宽松一些的附录二,附录二是允许诸如狩猎战利品之类的贸易的。

Four other southern African countries (Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe), whose elephants were moved to Appendix II 20 years ago, want to be allowed to trade in their products, which, despite the change in status, they have mostly been prohibited from doing.

其他四个非洲南部国家(博茨瓦纳、纳米比亚、南非和津巴布韦)的大象早在20年前就被移至附录二了,它们希望被允许进行大象相关产品的贸易,尽管这些国家的大象数量有所改观,但它们仍被禁止开展大象相关产品的贸易。

To understand why these reasonable-sounding proposals should be rejected, consider what has happened to elephant numbers since CITES most recently authorised some legal trade, when Botswana, Namibia and South Africa were allowed in 2007 to sell a fixed amount of ivory to Japan, as a one-off. Elephant numbers started falling again. 

为了理解这些听起来合理的提议为什么应该被拒绝,我们不妨看看在CITES近些年批准了一些有关大象的合法贸易后,大象数量所发生的变化吧。2007年,博茨瓦纳、纳米比亚和南非获准一次性向日本出售一定数量的象牙。大象的数量随即开始下降。

A survey conducted in 2014-15 estimated that elephant numbers had fallen by 30% across 18 countries since 2007; another estimated a decline of over 100,000 elephants, a fifth of the total number, between 2006 and 2015. Increased poaching was at least partly to blame.

2014年至2015年开展的一项调查估计,自2007年以来,18个国家的大象数量下降了30%;另一项研究估计,2006年至2015年间,大象数量减少了逾10万头,即总数的20%。而偷猎的增加肯定是原因之一。


有趣1

好文章,需要您的鼓励

不喜欢

太烂,再也不想看了

推荐阅读

查询更多资讯