2018上半年翻譯考試catti三級(jí)筆譯試題：漁業(yè)發(fā)展

　　英譯漢

　　Study Finds Hope in Saving Saltwater Fish Can we have our fish and eat it too? An unusual collaboration of marine ecologists and fisheries management scientists says the answer may be yes.

　　In a research paper in Friday‟s issue of the journal Science, the two groups, long at odds with each other, offer a global assessment of the world‟s saltwater fish and their environments.

　　Their conclusions are at once gloomy — overfishing continues to threaten many species— and upbeat: a combination of steps can turn things around. But because antagonism between ecologists and fisheries management experts has been intense, many familiar with the study say the most important factor is that it was done at all.

　　They say they hope the study will inspire similar collaborations between scientists whose focus is safely exploiting specific natural resources and those interested mainly in conserving them.

　　“We need to merge those two communities,” said Steve Murawski, chief fis heries scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “This paper starts to bridge that gap.”

　　The collaboration began in 2006 when Boris Worm, a marine ecologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and other scientists made an alarming prediction: if current trends continue, by 2048 overfishing will have destroyed most commercially important populations of saltwater fish. Ecologists applauded the work. But among fisheries management scientists, reactions ranged from skepticism to fury over what many called an alarmist report.

　　Among the most prominent critics was Ray Hilborn, a professor of aquatic and fishery sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle. Yet the disagreement did not play out in typical scientific fashion with, as Dr. Hilborn put it, “researchers firing critical papers back and forth.” Instead, he and Dr. Worm found themselves debating the issue on National Public Radio. “We started talking and found more common ground than we had expected,” Dr. Worm said. Dr. Hilborn recalled thinking that Dr. Worm “actually seemed like a reasonable person.”

　　The two decided to work together on the issue. They sought and received financing and began organizing workshops at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, an organization sponsored by the National Science Foundation and based at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

　　At first, Dr. Hilborn said in an interview, “the fisheries management people would go to lunch and the marine ecologists would go to lunch” — separately. But soon they were collecting and sharing data and recruiting more colleagues to analyze it.

　　Dr. Hilborn said he and Dr. Worm now understood why the ecologists and the management scientists disagreed so sharply in the first place. For one thing, he said, as long as a fish species was sustaining itself, management scientists were relatively untroubled if its abundance fell to only 40 or 50 percent of what it might otherwise be. Yet to ecologists, he said, such a stock would be characterized as “depleted” — “a very pejorative word.”

　　In the end, the scientists concluded that 63 percent of saltwater fish stocks had been depleted “below what we think of as a target range,” Dr. Worm said. But they also agreed that fish in well-managed areas, including the United States, were recovering or doing well. They wrote that management techniques like closing some areas to fishing, restricting the use of certain fishing gear or allocating shares of the catch to individualfishermen, communities or others could allow depleted fish stocks to rebound.

　　The researchers suggest that a calculation of how many fish in a given species can be caught in a given region without threatening the stock, called maximum sustainable yield, is less useful than a standard that takes into account the health of the wider marine environment. They also agreed that solutions did not lie only in management techniques but also in the political will to apply them, even if they initially caused economic disruption.

　　Because the new paper represents the views of both camps, its conclusions are likely to be influential, Dr. Murawski said. “Getting a strong statement from those communities that there is more to agree on than to disagree on builds confidence,” he said.

　　At a news conference on Wednesday, Dr. Worm said he hoped to be alive in 2048, when he would turn 79. If he is, he said, “I will be hosting a seafood party — at least I hope so.”

　　參考譯文：

　　漁業(yè)發(fā)展能否做到“魚(yú)與熊掌”兼得?海洋生態(tài)學(xué)家與漁業(yè)管理學(xué)家之間進(jìn)行的非同尋常的合作表明，二者或可兼得。周五發(fā)行的新一期《科學(xué)》雜志刊登了一份研究報(bào)告，向來(lái)勢(shì)不兩立的這兩大派別在報(bào)告中對(duì)咸水魚(yú)及其生存環(huán)境作了全球性評(píng)估。

　　他們得出的結(jié)論可謂喜憂參半，憂的是過(guò)度捕撈繼續(xù)威脅著許多魚(yú)類，喜的是通過(guò)采取一系列措施可以扭轉(zhuǎn)局面。但是，鑒于海洋生態(tài)學(xué)家與漁業(yè)管理學(xué)家向來(lái)水火不容，對(duì)這項(xiàng)研究比較了解的許多人士指出，這項(xiàng)研究的重要意義在于表明了兩大陣營(yíng)可以合作共事。

　　這些人士稱，他們希望這項(xiàng)研究能夠激勵(lì)那些主張適度開(kāi)發(fā)某些自然資源的科學(xué)家與主張保護(hù)自然資源的科學(xué)家之間開(kāi)展類似合作。斯蒂夫・穆拉維斯基(Steve Murawski)是美國(guó)國(guó)家海洋和大氣管理局的首席漁業(yè)科學(xué)家，他說(shuō)，“我們需要整合這兩大陣營(yíng)，這項(xiàng)聯(lián)合研究是一個(gè)良好開(kāi)端。”這項(xiàng)聯(lián)合研究始于 2006 年，當(dāng)時(shí)來(lái)自達(dá)爾豪斯大學(xué)(位于加拿大新斯科舍省哈利法克斯)的海洋生態(tài)學(xué)家鮑里斯·沃姆(Boris Worm)以及其他一些科學(xué)家警告稱，如果任由過(guò)度捕撈而不加制止的話，到 2048 年，一些具有重要商業(yè)價(jià)值的咸水魚(yú)類將會(huì)消失殆盡。許多生態(tài)學(xué)家對(duì)這一警告擊掌叫好，但是漁業(yè)管理學(xué)家們對(duì)這一預(yù)測(cè)不是表示懷疑，就是感到憤怒，稱這份報(bào)告是杞人憂天。西雅圖華盛頓大學(xué)研究水產(chǎn)與漁業(yè)的知名教授雷·希爾本對(duì)這一報(bào)告就頗有微詞。不過(guò)，他并沒(méi)有以科學(xué)家通常采用的方式來(lái)表達(dá)自己的不同意見(jiàn)。希爾本教授說(shuō)，“通常情況下，研究人員會(huì)不斷拿出關(guān)鍵論文來(lái)進(jìn)行爭(zhēng)辯�！边@次的辯論一反常態(tài)，希爾本博士和沃姆博士在美國(guó)國(guó)家公共電臺(tái)展開(kāi)激辯。

　　沃姆博士稱，“我們?cè)谵q論時(shí)發(fā)現(xiàn)我們的共識(shí)之多超乎預(yù)料�！毕�爾本博士回想當(dāng)時(shí)的情景時(shí)稱，他當(dāng)時(shí)也認(rèn)為沃姆博士“實(shí)際上看似一個(gè)通情達(dá)理的人�！彪p方?jīng)Q定就此問(wèn)題共同展開(kāi)研究。他們開(kāi)始籌措資金，在加州圣塔芭芭拉市美國(guó)國(guó)生態(tài)分析與合成中心舉辦研討會(huì)。該國(guó)家中心由美國(guó)國(guó)家科學(xué)基金會(huì)贊助支持。希爾本博士在接受采訪時(shí)稱，最初“漁業(yè)管理學(xué)家與海洋生態(tài)學(xué)家分開(kāi)吃午飯”。不過(guò)，沒(méi)過(guò)多久，兩個(gè)陣營(yíng)就開(kāi)始收集、共享數(shù)據(jù)，并招募更多同事來(lái)分析數(shù)據(jù)。

　　希爾本博士稱，他和沃姆博士現(xiàn)在明白了為什么當(dāng)初海洋生態(tài)學(xué)家與漁業(yè)管理學(xué)家觀點(diǎn)會(huì)如此迥異。希爾本博士說(shuō)，只要某一魚(yú)類能夠正常延續(xù)下去，種群數(shù)量保持在自然水平的 40%或 50%以上，漁業(yè)管理學(xué)家認(rèn)為這是可以接受的，但是對(duì)于海洋生態(tài)學(xué)家而言，種群數(shù)量下降至這一水平將被定性為“枯竭”，這是一個(gè)“頗具貶義的字眼”�？茖W(xué)家們得出的最終結(jié)論是，63%的咸水魚(yú)類資源已經(jīng)耗盡，所剩資源“低于我們的目標(biāo)范圍，”沃姆博士如是說(shuō)。

　　但是，兩大陣營(yíng)也一致認(rèn)為，在美國(guó)等漁業(yè)管理比較完善的地區(qū)，魚(yú)類資源正逐步恢復(fù)或保持穩(wěn)定�？茖W(xué)家們?cè)谘芯繄?bào)告中寫到，在一些地區(qū)實(shí)施休漁政策、限制使用某些漁具、對(duì)個(gè)體漁民、社區(qū)等有關(guān)各方合理分配捕魚(yú)量等一些管理政策將有助于面臨枯竭的魚(yú)類資源逐步得到恢復(fù)。

　　參與該項(xiàng)研究的科學(xué)家們稱，與最高可持續(xù)捕魚(yú)量相比，設(shè)定一個(gè)統(tǒng)籌整個(gè)海洋環(huán)境健康發(fā)展的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)更有意義。所謂最高可持續(xù)捕魚(yú)量是指在不威脅某一魚(yú)類資源存續(xù)的前提下在某一地區(qū)的最高捕魚(yú)限量�？茖W(xué)家們也一致認(rèn)為，解決之道不僅僅在于制定完善的漁業(yè)管理方法，還在于有無(wú)將管理方法落到實(shí)處的政治意愿，盡管實(shí)施之初會(huì)給經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展帶來(lái)一定影響。

　　穆拉維斯基博士說(shuō)，鑒于該報(bào)告代表了兩大陣營(yíng)的共同觀點(diǎn)，報(bào)告中得出的相關(guān)結(jié)論將會(huì)產(chǎn)生巨大影響。他說(shuō)，“兩大陣營(yíng)明確表示雙方共識(shí)大于分歧，這有助于提振信心�！蔽帜凡┦吭谥苋�舉行的新聞發(fā)布會(huì)上稱，他希望自己能活到 2048 年，到那時(shí)自己將屆 79 歲高齡。他說(shuō)，倘能如愿，“我將舉辦一個(gè)海鮮派對(duì)，至少這是一個(gè)愿望”。