Wildlife trade

野生生物貿(mào)易

Wildlife crime

野生生物犯罪

We have known for some time now that serious wildlife crime is organised, transnational, is fuelled by corruption, and has a devastating impact on wildlife, local communities, national economies, security, public health and entire ecosystems, but this is now increasingly obvious.

我們已經(jīng)了解，嚴(yán)重的野生生物犯罪往往是有組織的、跨國(guó)界的、受不正當(dāng)利益驅(qū)動(dòng)的，對(duì)野生動(dòng)植物、當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)、社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)、國(guó)家安全、公共健康以及整個(gè)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)都有毀滅性的影響，且正變得越來(lái)越明顯。

The figures are staggering. A recent report from the World Bank puts value of such crime in the vicinity of USD200 billion a year, when one includes all wildlife, including fish and timber. It says that governments are losing between USD7-12 billion a year in tax revenue, and the impact on ecosystems is valued in the order of USD1-2 trillion, as the theft of wildlife diminishes ecosystems, including their ability to mitigate climate change.[v] The costs of wildlife-related pandemics are incalculable.

相關(guān)數(shù)據(jù)十分觸目驚心。世界銀行近期的一份報(bào)告顯示，野生動(dòng)物犯罪行業(yè)每年的價(jià)值約有2千億美元，包括所有野生動(dòng)植物種類(lèi)（比如魚(yú)類(lèi)和木材）。據(jù)報(bào)告，每年政府將在稅收方面損失近70到120億美元，野生動(dòng)物犯罪對(duì)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的影響將造成約1到2萬(wàn)億美元的損失，因?yàn)楸I獵野生動(dòng)植物將對(duì)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)造成嚴(yán)重?fù)p失，比如喪失緩解氣候變化的能力[5]。與野生動(dòng)物相關(guān)的大流行病所造成的損失則無(wú)法預(yù)估。

Yet, remarkably, despite these facts, there is no global legal agreement on wildlife crime.

但令人匪夷所思的是，我們?cè)谝吧鷦?dòng)物犯罪方面卻沒(méi)有國(guó)際法律協(xié)定。

In the absence of any alternative, we have used CITES to crank up the fight against illegal wildlife trade, and with some success. However, CITES was never designed to deal with wildlife crime and its limitations as a trade-related, rather than a crime-related convention, in combating serious wildlife crimes are now in plain sight.[vi]

目前還沒(méi)有可以代替《公約》的體系，我們利用《公約》框架加大對(duì)非法野生動(dòng)物貿(mào)易的打擊，已取得一定成果。但是，《公約》并不是為應(yīng)對(duì)野生動(dòng)植物犯罪而生，《公約》是一個(gè)圍繞貿(mào)易，而不是犯罪的體系，在打擊嚴(yán)重的野生動(dòng)物貿(mào)易方面它的局限性顯而易見(jiàn)[6]。

And with the benefit of the UN IPBES Global Assessment, we must look beyond CITES listed species, which accounts for only 36,000, or 0.5%, of the world’s eight million species, and use the law to help countries stop the theft of all their wildlife, plants and animals, terrestrial and marine, not just those species that are on the brink of extinction.

有了生物多樣性和生態(tài)系統(tǒng)服務(wù)政府間科學(xué)-政策平臺(tái)（IPBES）全球評(píng)估體系的幫助，我們不應(yīng)只局限于《公約》附錄名單里的物種。全球有大約800萬(wàn)種生物，然而CITES附錄名單只涵蓋了3.6萬(wàn)種，大約占0.5%。我們必須利用法律工具幫助各國(guó)終止所有盜取野生物種的行為，包括植物和野生動(dòng)物（陸生和海洋），不應(yīng)只關(guān)注瀕臨滅絕的物種。

We must finally grasp the nettle with wildlife crime and put combating serious wildlife crimes where it belongs. We must embed it into the international criminal law framework, which can be done via a new Protocol to the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, as has been done for other serious crimes, such as human trafficking.

我們必須大刀闊斧地解決野生動(dòng)物犯罪問(wèn)題，給予其足夠重視。我們必須將此納入國(guó)際刑法框架內(nèi)，效仿管控其他嚴(yán)重犯罪行為（比如人口販賣(mài)）的措施，在聯(lián)合國(guó)打擊跨國(guó)有組織犯罪公約下簽訂新的議定書(shū)。

Protect wildlife at source

從源頭上保護(hù)野生動(dòng)物

Wherever possible, it is best to take measures to stop the illegal taking, trade and consumption of wildlife before it ever happens, by better protecting wildlife and its habitat.

只要有可能，我們應(yīng)通過(guò)加大力度保護(hù)野生動(dòng)物及其棲息地，在非法盜獵、交易和消費(fèi)野生動(dòng)物的行為發(fā)生前采取措施阻止它。

When they have a stake in it, local communities are the best protectors of wildlife, before it ever enters illegal trade, thereby helping avert the next wildlife-related pandemic.[vii]

當(dāng)這些行為與當(dāng)?shù)鼐用竦睦嫦⑾⑾嚓P(guān)時(shí)，作為野生動(dòng)物的最佳保護(hù)者，他們可以幫助阻止野生動(dòng)物進(jìn)入非法交易鏈。由此幫助預(yù)防下一場(chǎng)與野生動(dòng)物有關(guān)的大流行病[7]。

We need to focus our collective efforts around large-scale, long-term commitments to biodiverse-rich places that are included in protected areasand other effective area-based conservation measures, and that can deliver multiple benefits.

我們應(yīng)在涵蓋范圍廣、長(zhǎng)期有效的承諾下通力合作，重點(diǎn)關(guān)注受保護(hù)以及“其他有效的區(qū)域保護(hù)措施”（OECMs）管轄內(nèi)的野生生物資源豐富的地區(qū)，以及關(guān)注可以帶來(lái)切實(shí)成果的地區(qū)。

We need to both scale up our ambition for the area of land and sea included in such areas, as well as our investment in them, which has for too long been treated as a secondary issue. The next Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, CoP15, presents an ideal opportunity to do so.

我們?cè)诒Ｗo(hù)和投資這類(lèi)陸域和海域時(shí)需要放遠(yuǎn)目光，然而這類(lèi)地區(qū)常常被放在次要議題的分類(lèi)里。下一屆《生物多樣性公約》締約方大會(huì)（CBD CoP15）提供了一個(gè)解決問(wèn)題的絕佳機(jī)會(huì)。

When well-managed, these areas provide security for people and wildlife and bring about stability, creating the conditions needed to attract tourism, secure carbon, combat poaching, protect biodiversity, and create decent local jobs in remote areas. They deliver on multiple global commitments all through one investment window, which I’ve seen for myself across many countries, including in the Garamba National Park in the DRC.

只要管理恰當(dāng)，這些地區(qū)能保證人們和野生動(dòng)物的安全，帶來(lái)穩(wěn)定和法律秩序，并創(chuàng)造條件吸引游客、降低碳排放量、打擊盜獵行為、保護(hù)生物多樣性，以及在偏遠(yuǎn)地區(qū)創(chuàng)造體面的工作機(jī)會(huì)。只要通過(guò)一類(lèi)投資窗口，就能實(shí)現(xiàn)多項(xiàng)全球承諾。我已經(jīng)在許多國(guó)家見(jiàn)證過(guò)這些成果，比如在剛果民主共和國(guó)的戈朗巴國(guó)家公園（Garamba National Park）。

The proposed German Legacy Landscape Fund and the UK’s Biodiverse Landscape Fund both adopt this approach, which is most welcome, but the funding is limited.

在德國(guó)設(shè)立的風(fēng)景遺產(chǎn)基金會(huì)和英國(guó)的生物多樣性景觀基金會(huì)都已采取此類(lèi)措施，值得我們鼓勵(lì)，但他們的運(yùn)營(yíng)資金十分有限。

Today we better understand the multiple benefits of nature conservation, yet these benefits are not sufficiently recognised by health, development or security initiatives or their financing. As the benefits of effective nature conservation extends well beyond wildlife, so too must the sources of financing.

今天我們更加深刻地理解到了自然保護(hù)的益處，但健康、發(fā)展或安全方面的倡議或資助并沒(méi)有足夠體現(xiàn)這種認(rèn)識(shí)。既然有效的自然保護(hù)措施所帶來(lái)的益處不僅限于野生生物，融資來(lái)源也不應(yīng)局限于此。

If we manage to take these separate but interrelated actions[viii], I believe we will be well placed to avert the next wildlife-related pandemic, but if we do not act boldly now to institutionalise the changes that are needed to laws, funding and programmes, I fear we may find ourselves back in the same place in the not too distant future.

如果我們有辦法采取這些行動(dòng)[8]，我相信我們將足以避免下一場(chǎng)與野生動(dòng)物相關(guān)的大流行病。但是我們?nèi)绻徊扇〈竽懶袆?dòng)，將相關(guān)法律的修訂、相關(guān)基金和項(xiàng)目制度化，我擔(dān)心未來(lái)我們可能再次陷入與如今相同的境地。

Thank you for the invitation to address you.

十分感謝邀請(qǐng)我發(fā)言。

（注：本文代表作者本人觀點(diǎn)）

【尾注】

[i] Such as HIV-AIDS, Ebola, MERS, SARS and more

[1]比如艾滋病、埃博拉病毒、中東呼吸綜合征、非典等

[ii] CITES trade controls only address overexploitation, namely whether a trade transaction will threaten the survival of that species. CITES narrow focus on overexploitation was sound when the Convention was negotiated in the early 1970’s, but it cannot be sustained in a post COVID-19 world.

[2]《公約》的貿(mào)易監(jiān)管工具只關(guān)注資源過(guò)度開(kāi)發(fā)的問(wèn)題，也就是說(shuō)，某次交易是否會(huì)威脅該物種的生存。該單一關(guān)注點(diǎn)在20世紀(jì)70年代初期，也就是在制定《公約》的時(shí)期里顯得十分合理，但這一關(guān)注點(diǎn)在“后新冠時(shí)代”將不再可行。

[iii] Including in listing species or in approving any trade transactions. For example, pangolins are listed under CITES, horseshoe bats, along with many other bat species, are not.

[3]比如在制定附錄名單或批準(zhǔn)交易時(shí)。例如，《公約》附錄里列出了穿山甲，但菊頭蝠和其它種類(lèi)的蝙蝠卻不在該公約附錄名單內(nèi)。

[iv] Which seeks to bring public, animal and plant health and the environment closer together

[4]“同一健康”的方針尋求將公共健康、動(dòng)植物健康以及環(huán)境緊密聯(lián)系在一起。

[v] Recent scientific reports show that intact ecosystems are better at sequestering carbon than degraded ones.

[5]近期有科學(xué)研究表明，完好無(wú)損的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)在吸收碳排放的能力比受損的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)更強(qiáng)。

[vi] This is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that record levels of illegal trade in pangolins have been recorded over the past two years, despite them being given the highest level of protection under the Convention in 2016.

[6]最明顯體現(xiàn)的是過(guò)去兩年內(nèi)，穿山甲非法貿(mào)易破紀(jì)錄式增長(zhǎng)，而穿山甲恰巧是《公約》自2016年來(lái)保護(hù)力度最大的動(dòng)物。

[vii] Wildlife-based tourism revenue is a critical part of the financing of nature conservation especially in developing countries. This current loss of revenue, and related jobs, is seriously challenging wildlife protection efforts, and could lead to an increase in poaching, degradation of ecosystems, and instability, thereby increasing the threat posed by high-risk wildlife trade, and exacerbating the effects of climate change. We must find a way to bridge this financing gap, which is addressed in your next session.

[7]以野生生物資源為主的旅游業(yè)收入是自然保護(hù)籌資的關(guān)鍵部分，特別是在發(fā)展中國(guó)家。目前這方面的收入減少和相關(guān)工作人員下崗，正嚴(yán)重挑戰(zhàn)野生動(dòng)植物保護(hù)工作，可能導(dǎo)致更多盜獵行為、生態(tài)系統(tǒng)退化加劇和不穩(wěn)定性上升，從而增加高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)野生動(dòng)物貿(mào)易帶來(lái)的威脅，加劇氣候變化現(xiàn)象。我們必須找到彌合這一資金缺口的方法，下屆會(huì)議將解決這一問(wèn)題。

[viii] It’s important to also note that to be as effective as possible, all these efforts will need to be complemented by well-targeted demand reduction campaigns, and, where necessary, initiatives to provide alternative sources of protein and livelihoods to people severely affected by any bans. Traditional, subsistence practices use should not be impacted.

[8] 值得注意的是，若想讓這些措施卓有成效，所有措施都應(yīng)通過(guò)定位精準(zhǔn)的需求降低行動(dòng)來(lái)實(shí)施，若條件允許，也可通過(guò)一些倡議，為受禁令嚴(yán)重影響的群體提供其他蛋白質(zhì)和生計(jì)來(lái)源。傳統(tǒng)的維持生計(jì)方法不應(yīng)受影響。