評論
打印
Leaders
來源于《社論》版塊
Endangered specie
瀕于滅絕的物種
The elephant in the room
屋中象
Now is not the time to liberalise the trade in endangered species
現(xiàn)在不是放開瀕危物種貿(mào)易的時(shí)候
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. 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.
《瀕危物種國際貿(mào)易公約》的各種附錄中列出了近6000種動物和約30000種植物，以保護(hù)它們免受過度開發(fā)。但是，當(dāng)《瀕危物種國際貿(mào)易公約》于本月在日內(nèi)瓦召開其三年一度的決策會議時(shí)，一種動物將像過去經(jīng)常出現(xiàn)的那樣，吸引大量的注意力：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. 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.
大象在很多方面都是《瀕危物種國際貿(mào)易公約》的吉祥物。1989年，在短短10年的時(shí)間里，一半的大象因?yàn)橥但C而滅絕。那一年，大象被列入《瀕危野生動植物種國際貿(mào)易公約》的附錄一，根據(jù)附錄一，幾乎所有大象產(chǎn)品的國際貿(mào)易都被禁止。對大象的屠殺放緩了。本月的會議將審議關(guān)于禁令的絕對程度的競爭性提案，因?yàn)樵谝恍﹪?，大象的?shù)量已經(jīng)恢復(fù)。尋求適度放松的國家有充分的理由。但理由不夠強(qiáng)大。禁令必須保留。
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. 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.
那些在保護(hù)大象方面做得很好的國家認(rèn)為不公平，這是可以理解的。這些國家指出，僅通過執(zhí)法成本，就已經(jīng)為大象投入了大量資源。而所有這一切的真正負(fù)擔(dān)是由當(dāng)?shù)氐母F人來承擔(dān)的，他們與野生動物爭奪資源，有時(shí)甚至與野生動物發(fā)生沖突——大象可能具有破壞性。按照這種觀點(diǎn)，人民和政府需要在大象的生存上有經(jīng)濟(jì)利益。象牙貿(mào)易會提供一個(gè)機(jī)會。
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. 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.
這就是為什么贊比亞希望自己國家的大象被轉(zhuǎn)移到稍微寬松一些的附錄II，這將允許一些貿(mào)易，例如，狩獵戰(zhàn)利品。其他四個(gè)南部非洲國家(博茨瓦納、納米比亞、南非和津巴布韋)的大象在20年前被移至附錄II，這些國家希望被允許交易產(chǎn)品，盡管地位發(fā)生了變化，但基本上被禁止這樣做。
譯文由可可原創(chuàng)，僅供學(xué)習(xí)交流使用，未經(jīng)許可請勿轉(zhuǎn)載。
