约翰·斯坎伦：终结野生动植物非法交易，全球行动应与时俱进

编者按：近日，非洲公园(African Parks)的特使、原联合国《濒危野生动植物种国际贸易公约》(CITES)秘书长约翰·斯坎伦(John Scanlon) 先生与绿会国际部小编分享了他的这篇最新文章。每次读他的作品都让我们很受启发和鼓舞，尽管这篇文章中并不是所有观点都认可，总感受益良多。现绿会经授权翻译发布如下，供各方参考。

他的几个核心观点值得我们反思：1）CITES本质上是个贸易公约，而非一个自然保护公约。处理非法贸易和更普遍的野生动物犯罪的法律文书不应由与贸易有关的公约CITES牵头，它现在必须被纳入国际刑法框架中。现有努力远远不够。2）强调自然保护要让当地社区受益；3）梳理了人们关于采取“以保护物种为主”还是“保护生态系统为主”的方法产生的不同的阵营。（这也是小编在实践工作中经常在思考的问题，尤其在涉及到诸如遗鸥、东方白鹳、大鸨等迁徙物种保护的时候所遇现实困境更然。不知未来的“2020后生物多样性全球框架”会给前者留下多少空间？）

编者按/Linda 译者/洪珮嘉 编/Angel

To end wildlife crime global responses must move with the times

终结野生动植物非法贸易，全球行动应与时俱进

约翰·斯坎伦

2020年3月17日

One million species are facing extinction within decades unless we change course according to the IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Can we save one species at a time or do we need to pursue more all-embracing solutions that reflect contemporary challenges?

如果我们不根据生物多样性和生态系统服务政府间科学政策平台（IPBES）的《全球生物多样性与生态系统服务评估报告》来改变行动方针，大约一百万野生物种将在未来几十年内濒临灭绝。我们应该一次拯救一种生物，还是采取更全面的措施以应对当代挑战？

The current mantra is a call for transformational change, which is clearly required. Doing things differently requires us to take a fresh look at historic approaches to conservation and question their ongoing efficacy in a changing world. Making bold but necessary changes will prove difficult and encounter resistance.

现在人们常常呼吁要进行革命性改变，这也正是我们需要的。要想有所改变，我们应重新审视历来的环境保护方法，质疑它们是否能在瞬息万变的世界里继续发挥应有效果。做出大胆却必要的改变将会很困难，也会面临阻碍。

IPBES describes five major threats to nature, amongst them over exploitation, which is seriously impacting wildlife, including fish and timber species. This overexploitation includes the illegal, unregulated, and poorly regulated legal use of wildlife. The possible links between consuming wild animals, including the pangolin, the world’s most heavily trafficked mammal, and the spread of the corona virus has given added momentum, and a new sense of urgency, to discussions on how to end wildlife crime.

IPBES报告列出了对自然的五大威胁，其中包括过度利用资源对野生动植物造成的影响极为严重，鱼类和木材树种都深受其害。资源过度利用还包括非法、违规和管制缺失的野生动植物资源利用。野生动物食用，包括全球走私量最大的哺乳动物穿山甲，与当前新型冠状病毒的传播可能存在联系。这一切都告诉我们终止野生动物非法贸易刻不容缓，并促使我们尽快行动起来。

A wet (live animal) market in Wuhan, China may be the origin of the outbreak of the corona virus. Bans on wet markets, as we have recently seen in China and Vietnam, will need to be applied and enforced across all countries to stave off future outbreaks. Global cooperation, and the full and effective use of law enforcement, is essential to ensure these markets don’t just go underground.

中国武汉的一个海鲜（野生动物）市场被认为有可能是新冠病毒的来源。禁止湿货市场（编者注：指野味市场）的交易，就如最近看到中国与越南采取的行动的那样，我们认为此举应当应用到全世界各地，以防止未来的流行疫病爆发。为了确保这些交易不转入地下，全球范围的合作和全面有效的执法十分重要。

At the UK House of Lords on 3 March, UN World Wildlife Day, ADM Capital Foundation and the Born Free Foundation hosted an event with Lord Randall on how we need to embed the fight against serious wildlife crime into the international criminal law framework, through a new agreement under the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (UNCTOC)[i]. In doing so, it was noted that saving wildlife also requires scaling up efforts to protect wildlife at its source, by working with local communities to protect biodiverse rich places.

3月3日是联合国“世界野生动植物日”，在英国上议院，ADM资本基金会（ADM Capital Foundation）和生而自由基金会（Born Free Foundation）与兰道尔勋爵（Lord Randall）共同主办了一场活动。该活动的主题是，如何通过《联合国打击跨国有组织犯罪公约》（UNCTOC），将打击严重野生动物犯罪纳入国际犯罪法框架【1】。行动过程中，我们也注意到，保护野生动物也应在源头上下功夫，与当地社区合作，保护生物多样性较强的地区。

This article addresses the inter-linkages between fighting serious wildlife crime and supporting local communities; and seeks to elaborate on the multiple benefits of place-based community engagement to end wildlife crime.  

本文主要探讨打击严重野生动物犯罪和保护支持当地社区之间的联系，以及引导地方性社区参与阻止野生动物贩卖的诸多优点。

Community-led or enforcement-led: it’s both

社区引导与法制引导：两者兼备

Some seek to cast the response to wildlife crime as either being community-led or enforcement-led, yet it is both, with the emphasis depending upon the place and the circumstances. The 2015 Small Arms Survey recognized that community-based initiatives to combat poaching depend on the achievement of basic levels of security. This is something I have observed for myself, both with African Parks and CITES, in visiting local communities in protected areas, community and private conservancies in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Kenya, Malawi, Rwanda and South Africa, where the first priority was security for wildlife and for people.

有人认为当地社区应是打击野生动植物犯罪的主力军，有人认为应由法制部门主要负责。其实两者都应参与其中，责任侧重则取决于具体情况。2015年的轻武器调查（Small Arms Survey）显示，基于社区的非法捕猎野生动物打击行动取决于当地安保基本水平。笔者在与非洲公园网络和CITES工作时也观察到了这一点。我们曾到达刚果共和国、肯尼亚、马拉维、卢旺达和南非，探访当地位于受保护地区、社区和私人保护区的社区。在这些地方，保护野生动物和当地居民的安全是重点。

The past 50 years of saving biodiversity: a very brief snapshot

过去50年的生物多样性保护历史缩影

Global efforts to address environmental degradation, including the loss of nature, can be traced back to the 1972 Stockholm UN Conference on the Human Environment[ii], which was followed by a wave of environmental conventions in the 1970s, the 1984 UN Charter for Nature, a second wave of environmental conventions in the 1990s, and multiple summits, the most recent being the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, which led to a process that delivered the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015.

1972年于斯德哥尔摩召开的联合国人类环境大会【2】，是全球开始联合治理环境恶化的第一步，包括解决自然面积退化问题。此后一系列环境议题大会在20世纪70年代召开。1984年联合国通过的《世界自然宪章》在90年代掀起了第二轮环境大会的召开（编者注：应为1982年）。无数关于自然环境的峰会也不断召开，最近一场便是2012年在里约热内卢的联合国可持续发展大会，大会上取得的进展在2015年催生了联合国可持续发展目标（SDGs）。

Biodiversity is about animals, plants, micro-organisms and their ecosystems, which can be a little overwhelming. In the 1970s we tended to break it down into bite size pieces, such as trade in species, World Heritage sites, and migratory species[iii], which had its advantages. IPBES tells us that this approach has had limited impact in halting the loss of biodiversity. By way of example, we have lost 85% of wetlands by area, yet we have had a Convention on International Wetlands of Importance (Ramsar) since 1973.

生物多样性包括动物、植物、有机微生物以及它们生活的生态环境，所涵盖事物之广，有点让人有些应接不暇。在70年代，专家倾向于将生物多样性保护工作细分，比如分为野生动植物贸易、世界遗产地和迁徙物种等【3】。这样分类固然有它的好处，但是IPBES表示这种方法对阻止生物多样性被破坏影响甚微。举个例子，地球上85%的湿地面积已不复存在，然而《国际重点湿地公约》（拉姆萨尔公约）在1973年就通过了。

In the 1990s we took a more overarching approach, with the objectives of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) being the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, namely covering all species and places, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources. It too has had limited success. The Biodiversity Target adopted by the CBD for 2010 was not met, and the Biodiversity Targets for 2020 will not be met. Since shortly before the CBD was adopted, we have lost over 60% of wild animals (vertebrates)[iv].

20世纪90年代我们采取了更全面的方法。1992年《生物多样性公约》（CBD）制定了相关目标，此后我们将该目标应用到生物多样性保护和可持续使用上。目标涵盖所有物种和地理形态，规定了遗传资源使用的好处应公平分享，但成效有限。2010年《生物多样性公约》大会采取的生物多样性目标未达成，2020年的目标也不会达成。因为在《生物多样性公约》成立之前，我们就已经失去了60%的野生动物（脊椎类）【4】。

The importance of involving local and indigenous communities in conservation and ensuring they benefit from the utilization of biodiversity, be it wild animals and plants, genetic resources or use of their traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources, is an integral part of the CBD, its Nagoya Protocol, and is reflected in the IPBES Global Assessment. Here we see a divergence in approaches between the 1973 CITES Convention and the 2010 Nagoya Protocol on prior and informed consent and equitable sharing of benefits[v].

让当地社区参与到生态保护中，确保他们能从生物多样性实践中受益，无论是指野生动植物、遗传资源，还是遗传资源相关传统知识的使用，都很重要。这也是《生物多样性公约》和其中《名古屋议定书》的重要一环，在IPBES全球评估里也有所体现。在提前许可、知情同意和惠益共享方面，1973年的CITES公约和2010年的名古屋议定书之间有一定差异【5】。

A species or ecosystem-based approach

基于物种或生态系统的保护方法

There is a tension between taking a species based or ecosystem-based approach to conservation. The answer probably lies somewhere in between. We clearly will not succeed if we try and save one species at a time. We must focus on ecosystems and the rich array of species they contain and services they provide. At the same time, given their perilous conservation status, some species need special measures to ensure their survival, and efforts to save flagship species can attract good political and public support and lead to the protection of habitat for many other species.

在生态保护方面，人们关于采取以保护物种为主还是保护生态系统为主的方法产生了不同的阵营。笔者认为正确答案或许介于两者之间。一次保护一个物种的方式无法取得成功，我们应同时关注生态系统、其中的大量物种和生态系统功能。同时我们还应考虑到，有些物种的保护状况十分严峻，需要采取特殊方法才能确保它们存活下来。而保护重点物种能获得更多政治上和公众的支持，进一步保护更多物种的栖息地。

The UN’s post-2020 path to save biodiversity

2020年后联合国的生物多样性保护之路

We are now mid-way through a process of agreeing on a post 2020 biodiversity framework, with new goals and targets. The process this time around benefits from the UN SDGs and Paris Agreement (on climate change), which embrace biodiversity conservation. It is not easy, but the process is off to a positive start, with the Zero draft including good recognition of the need to link to climate change and nature-based solutions, protecting 30% of the planet by 2030, and linking biodiversity conservation to delivering on the UN SDGs. Ecosystems and species are both recognised. Achieving the final set of post-2020 biodiversity targets by 2030 will depend on whether the level of ambition is matched by the resourcing, and the extent to which they are embraced at the highest level of Government and by industry sectors.

在达成带有新目标的2020年后生物多样性全球框架的路上，我们已经前进了一半。这几年的进展也得益于联合国可持续发展目标和巴黎协定，因为这些协议也关照到生物多样性保护。路漫漫其修远兮，但是我们已经有一个好开端。《零号草案》充分考虑了生物多样性保护和气候变化、自然方法之间的联系，目标是到2030年保护地球上30%自然地区，同时也将生物多样性保护和联合国可持续发展目标联系起来。能否在2030年达成2020年后生物多样性目标的最后一步取决于两个因素，一是达成目标的决心是否与资源支持相匹配，二是这些目标是否能获得政府高层和行业部门的认可。

Emergency room approach: waiting until a species is near extinct before offering protection

治标之举：待物种濒临灭绝时才采取措施

CITES, which regulates international wildlife trade, applies to species listed in its Appendices, which currently contain 36,000 of the world’s eight million species. International trade in these species requires the necessary certificates or permits, which Customs and other officials will look for when a trade takes place. The Convention text requires the trade to be legal[vi] and sustainable, meaning that the trade does not threaten the survival of the species in the wild. It is the legal aspects of trade that this article is focused upon.

规范国际野生动植物贸易的《濒危野生动植物种国际贸易公约》（CITES）适用于其附录中所列的物种，该物种目前在全球800万种中占36,000种。这些物种的国际贸易需要必要的证书或许可证，海关和其他官员将要求进行贸易的人员要求提供这些证书或许可证。《公约》文本要求该贸易是合法的【6】且可持续的，这意味着该贸易不会威胁野生物种的生存。本文关注的是贸易的法律方面。

A lot of effort goes into CITES trying to distinguish between listed and non-listed species. In most countries, if a specimen of an animal or plant is not listed the trade will be allowed to pass unchecked. In some circumstances Customs find it is all too complicated and the trade will pass in any event. A milestone from the CITES CoP15 in 2013 was the listing of some commercially harvested sharks, which set the scene for additional listings in 2016 and 2019. Yet only 10 of the 400 species of sharks are listed and huge effort has gone into being able to distinguish the fin or meat of one shark from another. There have been similar issues with timber species, as well as many others.

CITES付出了很多努力，决定哪些物种应列入保护范围。在大多数国家，如果动植物标本未被列为保护物种，则该贸易未经检查就可以清关。在某些情况下，海关认为这一程序太复杂，所以各种贸易都会直接清关。2013年《濒危野生动植物种国际贸易公约》第15次缔约方大会的一个里程碑是，一些商业捕捞的鲨鱼被列为保护物种，这为2016年和2019年其他鲨鱼入列打下了基础。然而，在400种鲨鱼中，只有10种被列为保护动物，大量精力花费在了区分鱼鳍或鱼肉来自哪种鲨鱼。在木材保护和其他物种方面也存在类似问题。

If a wild animal or plant is taken illegally from a country, including its waters, why is it only of concern if it is one of the 36,000 species listed under CITES? Is it acceptable to the international community for organised criminals to steal wildlife from a country and import it to another provided it is not listed under CITES? Surely not, but that’s often the effect of the current system.

如果野生动物或植物从一个国家（包括其水域）被非法掠夺，那么为什么只有该物种是《濒危野生动植物种国际贸易公约》所列的36,000种之一才会引起关注？如果国际犯罪组织有组织的罪犯从一个国家偷走野生动植物并将其进口到另一个国家（如果该野生动植物未列入《濒危野生动植物种国际贸易公约》（CITES）），是否可以接受？当然不行，但这通常是目前运行体系下的结果。

A 2019 World Bank Report[vii], concludes that illegal trade in all wildlife deprives governments of between USD7-12 billion dollars a year. It also causes between USD1-2 trillion of damage to ecosystems according to the same report.

2019年世界银行报告【7】得出结论，野生动植物非法贸易使政府每年损失7-12亿美元。根据同一份报告，它还会对生态系统造成1-2万亿美元的破坏。

With the threat of one million species going extinct, and the implications of illegal trade for climate change, public health, government revenue and local and national economies, can this emergency ward approach to global conservation adopted in 1973 still be supported in 2020?

随着一百万物种灭绝的威胁，以及非法贸易对气候变化、公共卫生、政府收入以及地方和国家经济的影响，自1973年采用的这种全球紧急保护方案能否在2020年继续得到人们支持？

The world has changed dramatically since the 1970s, as has the globalised nature of wildlife crime, and the findings of the IPBES Assessment and World Bank Report demand a fundamental shift in approach. We can no longer only be concerned with legal trade in a limited number of ‘endangered’ species. Times have changed dramatically, and we must move with them.

自1970年代以来，世界已经发生了巨大变化，野生动植物犯罪的全球化性质也是如此。IPBES评估和世界银行报告的发现要求进行根本性的转变。我们不再只关心数量有限的“濒危”物种的合法贸易。时代发生了巨大变化，我们必须与时俱进。

CITES well-tested, science-based trade controls can still apply to ‘endangered’ species to ensure the sustainability of any lawful trade in them, which takes it back to its core mandate. A narrower focus on the sustainability of species in trade is sound, although the traditional narrative around such trade needs to evolve, especially as it relates to wild animals.[viii] The legal instrument for dealing with illegal trade, and wildlife crime more generally, should not, however, be led by CITES, a trade-related convention, and it now needs to be embedded in the international criminal law framework.

CITES经过严格测试、科学性的贸易控制措施仍然可以应用于“濒危”物种，以确保其任何合法贸易的可持续性，这使其回到了其核心任务。尽管围绕这种贸易的传统叙述需要发展，尤其是与野生动物有关的传统叙述，但对贸易中物种的可持续性的细致关注是合理的【8】。但是，处理非法贸易和更普遍的野生动物犯罪的法律文书不应由与贸易有关的公约CITES牵头，它现在必须被纳入国际刑法框架中。

This shift can come though importing countries creating a legal obligation, supported by criminal sanctions, for an importer of wildlife to prove that any wildlife, animal or plant, terrestrial or marine, that it seeks to import was legally obtained under the source countries national laws. This is not unlike the approach taken in some countries, such as in the US under the Lacey Act, and what some countries have in place for certain timber imports. This idea was put forward at the recent End Wildlife Crime event at the House of Lords, which promoted a new agreement on wildlife crime, one that addresses the importation, distribution and consumption of illegally sourced wildlife.[ix]

尽管进口国在刑事制裁的支持下规定了法律义务，即野生动植物的进口商应证明其试图进口的任何野生动植物，无论是来自陆地或海洋，都是根据来源国国家法律合法获得的，但这种转变可能会发生。这与某些国家（例如美国根据《雷斯法案》（Lacey Act））所采取的方法以及某些国家针对某些木材进口所采取的方法并无不同。这个想法是在英国上议院最近的“终结野生动植物犯罪”活动中提出的，该活动促进了一项关于野生动植物犯罪的新协议，该协议解决了非法来源野生动植物的进口、分配和消费问题【9】。

Place-based conservation: accountability, results, achieving multiple objectives

当地保护：可靠性、成效性、多目标达成

It is local communities living with and among wildlife who should be the beneficiaries of the consumptive and non-consumptive use of wildlife, not organised criminals. But opportunities for local communities are diminished or destroyed by transnational organised criminals shifting thousands of tonnes of contraband, worth billions of dollars, and leaving death, destruction and instability in its wake. Making illegal trade riskier and less profitable by criminalising the import of illegally sourced wildlife will serve to help take some pressure off source countries, their enforcement officers, rangers and local communities.

与野生动植物一起生活的地方社区应该是消费性和非消费性野生动植物利用的受益者，而不是有组织的犯罪分子。但是，跨国有组织犯罪分子转移了数千吨的走私品，价值数十亿美元，并因此而导致死亡、破坏和动荡，从而减少或破坏了当地社区的机会。通过将非法进口野生动植物定为犯罪，使非法贸易具有更高的风险，并降低其利润，将有助于减轻来源国，执法人员，护林员和当地社区的压力。

When they have a stake in it, local communities will be the best protectors of wildlife at its source, before it ever enters illegal trade, which is evidenced by what we have seen through the work of African Parks across 11 countries from Angola to Zambia, as well in Gorongosa, Mozambique and the Norther Rangelands Trust in Kenya. These conservation and sustainable development ‘start ups’ are carving out a fresh and new approach to conservation that is sorely needed.

当他们参与其中时，当地社区将成为野生动植物进入非法贸易之前的最佳保护者。这一点从我们从安哥拉到赞比亚等11个国家/地区的非洲公园的工作中可以看到，以及在戈龙戈萨、莫桑比克和肯尼亚的Norther Rangelands Trust。这些保护生态和可持续发展的“初创企业”正在开辟一种迫切需要的新的保护方式。

Yet for such efforts to succeed, they need long-term sustained financing. The era of fly-in fly-out conservation should come to an end, as should the thin scattering of small unconnected projects, each of which may be valuable but are not having a long-term impact at scale.

然而，为了取得成功，他们需要长期持续的融资。“来得快、走得快”式保护的时代应该结束，小型无关联项目的零星散布也应该结束，每个项目可能都是有价值的，但不会在规模上产生长期影响。

We need a simple organising principle that enables us to achieve multiple objectives, measurable results and ensure accountability for performance. We can do this by focusing our collective efforts around a long-term commitment to biodiverse-rich places that are included in protected areas or are protected through other effective area-based conservation measures. This is where:

我们需要一个简单的组织原则，使我们能够实现多个目标、可衡量的结果并确保对成效负责。 为此，我们可以集中努力，对包括保护区或通过其他有效的基于区域的保护措施进行保护的生物多样性丰富的地方作出长期承诺。例如以下：

- multiple projects, large and small, of any duration, can be part of a larger overall planned and long-term effort;

-任何规模、大小不限的多个项目都可以作为较大的总体计划和长期工作的一部分；

- national and international efforts targeting biodiversity, climate, and sustainable development can converge and deliver multiple benefits; and

-针对生物多样性、气候和可持续发展的国家和国际努力可以融合并带来多种利益；以及

- implementation of global conventions on biodiversity, climate change, trade in endangered species, international wetlands and World heritage, can synergise on-the-ground, along with other related sustainable development goals and obligations under human rights conventions.

-实施关于生物多样性、气候变化、濒危物种贸易、国际湿地和世界遗产的全球公约，可以与其他人权公约相关的可持续发展目标和义务进行落地的协同增效。

I observed how this convergence and these synergies do deliver multiple benefits for people and wildlife when visiting the Garamba National Park in DRC on Garamba Ranger Day in 2019.

笔者在2019年加兰巴游骑兵日访问刚果（金）的加兰巴国家公园时观察到，这种融合和这些协同作用可以为人类和野生生物带来多重利益。

Well-managed protected areas provide security for people and wildlife and create a sense of stability and law and order. This establishes the pre-conditions, or enabling environment, that can attract tourism, secure carbon, combat poaching, protect biodiversity, deliver on international commitments, create decent local jobs and provide good returns for investors, be they government, for-profit or philanthropic investors.

管理完善的保护地可为人类和野生动植物提供安全保障，并营造一种稳定和法治的氛围。这就建立了前提条件或有利环境，可以吸引旅游业，确保碳排放，打击偷猎，保护生物多样性，履行国际承诺，创造体面的当地工作并为投资者（无论是政府，营利性还是慈善事业）提供良好的回报。

It is positive to see that such an approach is the focus of Germany’s proposed Legacy Landscapes Fund and the UK’s Biodiversity Landscape Fund, reflecting a recognition of the need to do things differently and at scale, as well as the success of newcomers like African Parks, Gorongosa, and the Northern Rangelands Trust, and the creative thinking of several well-established organisations.

令人欣喜的是，这种方法是德国提议的景观遗产基金（Legacy Landscapes Fund）和英国生物多样性景观基金（Biodiversity Landscape Fund）的重点，反映出人们认识到有必要以不同的方式大规模开展工作，认可非洲公园、Gorongosa和Northern Rangelands Trust等新机构的成功以及认同一些知名组织的创新思维。

Keeping up with the times

与时俱进

Global responses to biodiversity loss must move with the times and we are seeing some positive initiatives being picked up by countries north and south. If we can blend taking a hard line against transnational organised criminals, who are stripping countries bare of their precious wildlife with serious local and global consequences, while also opening up new opportunities for local communities in and around biodiverse-rich areas, then we will not only end wildlife crime but see biodiversity, ecosystems and local communities thrive.

全球应对生物多样性丧失的对策必须与时俱进，我们看到北方和南方国家（编者注：指无论是发达国家还是发展中国家）都在采取一些积极举措。如果我们能够对跨国有组织犯罪分子采取强硬态度（他们正在剥夺各国宝贵的野生动植物资源，给当地和全球造成严重后果），同时又为生物多样性丰富地区及其周围地区的当地社区提供了新的机会，那么我们就不会只是阻止了野生动植物犯罪，但同时也能让生物多样性、生态系统和当地社区蓬勃发展。

作者: 约翰·斯坎伦（John E. Scanlon AO），非洲公园特使，CITES公约原秘书长；

译员：洪珮嘉（中国绿发会实习生）

审核：Linda

原文链接：

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/end-wildlife-crime-global-responses-must-move-times-scanlon-ao

【引文、说明】

[i] Such an agreement would oblige countries to address serious wildlife crimes at international and domestic levels, enhance cooperative law enforcement efforts, and criminalise the importation, distribution and consumption of illegally-sourced wildlife to help countries of origin protect their wildlife from being illegally exploited by organised criminals.

【1】这样的协议将迫使各国在国际和国内层面处理严重的野生动植物犯罪，加强合作执法努力，并将非法来源的野生动植物的进口、销和消费定为犯罪，以帮助起源国保护其野生动植物免受有组织犯罪的非法开发。

[ii] And many large conservation organisations have been operating in this space for some time, including IUCN, founded in 1948, and which was instrumental in the development of conventions in the 1970s, 1990s and the UN Charter for Nature.

【2】许多大型保护组织已经在这个领域运作了一段时间，包括成立于1948年的自然保护联盟（IUCN），该组织在1970年代，1990年代的公约和《联合国自然宪章》的制定中发挥了重要作用。

[iii] The approach of the conventions of the 1970’s is to focus on specific species and sites, with the 1979 Convention on Migratory Species being unique in that it seeks to protect specific species and to link their protection to their habitat.

【3】1970年代公约的做法是将重点放在特定物种和地点上，而1979年《迁徙物种公约》的独特之处在于它旨在保护特定物种并将其保护与其栖息地联系起来。

[iv] WWF 2018 Living Planet Report

【4】世界自然基金会2018年地球生命力报告

[v] The Nagoya Protocol of 2010, an agreement adopted under the CBD, aims at sharing the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources in a fair and equitable way. It sets up a regime to respect national laws on prior informed consent on gaining access to genetic resources. The obligations under the Protocol are not limited to genetic resources of a limited number of species, but to all species. The possible reach of the Protocol to cover ‘Digital Sequence Information’ (DSI) is a hot topic of discussion now.

【5】《生物多样性公约》通过的《2010年名古屋议定书》旨在以公平和公正的方式分享遗传资源利用所产生的惠益。它建立了一种制度，以尊重获得遗传资源的事先知情同意的国家法律。《议定书》规定的义务不仅限于数量有限的物种的遗传资源，还包括所有物种。该协议可能涵盖“数字序列信息”（DSI），这是当前讨论的热门话题。

[vi] But does not require prior and informed consent of local or indigenous communities or the equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of their utilization as the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing does for genetic resources.

【6】但不需要像《关于获取和惠益分享的名古屋议定书》对遗传资源所做的那样，事先征得当地或土著社区的事先知情同意，也不需要公平分享因其利用而产生的惠益。

[vii] Illegal Logging, Fishing and Wildlife Trade: The Costs and How to Combat It. World Bank, 2019.

【7】非法伐木、渔业和野生动植物贸易：成本及其应对方法。世界银行，2019年。

[viii] While noting that the traditional narrative of the Convention on the benefits of wildlife trade may not always well align with with several more contemporary issues, such as alien invasive species, animal welfare, and the spread of diseases to animals and humans, along with the fact that over 50% of wildlife trade now comes from captive bred or artificially propagated sources. That is another topic for another article.

【8】尽管注意到《公约》关于野生动植物贸易的利益的传统叙述可能并不总是与其他一些当代问题保持一致，例如外来入侵物种、动物福利以及疾病向动物和人类的传播等事实。现在超过50％的野生动植物贸易来自人工饲养或人工繁殖的资源。那是另一篇文章的另一个主题。

[ix] Such an agreement would oblige countries to address serious wildlife crimes at international and domestic levels, enhance cooperative law enforcement efforts, and criminalise the importation, distribution and consumption of illegally-sourced wildlife to help countries of origin protect their wildlife from being illegally exploited by organised criminals.

【9】这样的协议将迫使各国在国际和国内层面处理严重的野生动植物犯罪，加强合作执法努力，并将非法来源的野生动植物的进口、分销和消费定为犯罪，以帮助起源国保护其野生动植物免受有组织罪犯的非法开发。