2018上半年翻译考试catti三级笔译试题：渔业发展
英译汉
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.”
参考译文：
渔业发展能否做到“鱼与熊掌”兼得?海洋生态学家与渔业管理学家之间进行的非同寻常的合作表明，二者或可兼得。周五发行的新一期《科学》杂志刊登了一份研究报告，向来势不两立的这两大派别在报告中对咸水鱼及其生存环境作了全球性评估。
他们得出的结论可谓喜忧参半，忧的是过度捕捞继续威胁着许多鱼类，喜的是通过采取一系列措施可以扭转局面。但是，鉴于海洋生态学家与渔业管理学家向来水火不容，对这项研究比较了解的许多人士指出，这项研究的重要意义在于表明了两大阵营可以合作共事。
这些人士称，他们希望这项研究能够激励那些主张适度开发某些自然资源的科学家与主张保护自然资源的科学家之间开展类似合作。斯蒂夫・穆拉维斯基(Steve Murawski)是美国国家海洋和大气管理局的首席渔业科学家，他说，“我们需要整合这两大阵营，这项联合研究是一个良好开端。”这项联合研究始于 2006 年，当时来自达尔豪斯大学(位于加拿大新斯科舍省哈利法克斯)的海洋生态学家鲍里斯·沃姆(Boris Worm)以及其他一些科学家警告称，如果任由过度捕捞而不加制止的话，到 2048 年，一些具有重要商业价值的咸水鱼类将会消失殆尽。许多生态学家对这一警告击掌叫好，但是渔业管理学家们对这一预测不是表示怀疑，就是感到愤怒，称这份报告是杞人忧天。西雅图华盛顿大学研究水产与渔业的知名教授雷·希尔本对这一报告就颇有微词。不过，他并没有以科学家通常采用的方式来表达自己的不同意见。希尔本教授说，“通常情况下，研究人员会不断拿出关键论文来进行争辩。”这次的辩论一反常态，希尔本博士和沃姆博士在美国国家公共电台展开激辩。
沃姆博士称，“我们在辩论时发现我们的共识之多超乎预料。”希尔本博士回想当时的情景时称，他当时也认为沃姆博士“实际上看似一个通情达理的人。”双方决定就此问题共同展开研究。他们开始筹措资金，在加州圣塔芭芭拉市美国国生态分析与合成中心举办研讨会。该国家中心由美国国家科学基金会赞助支持。希尔本博士在接受采访时称，最初“渔业管理学家与海洋生态学家分开吃午饭”。不过，没过多久，两个阵营就开始收集、共享数据，并招募更多同事来分析数据。
希尔本博士称，他和沃姆博士现在明白了为什么当初海洋生态学家与渔业管理学家观点会如此迥异。希尔本博士说，只要某一鱼类能够正常延续下去，种群数量保持在自然水平的 40%或 50%以上，渔业管理学家认为这是可以接受的，但是对于海洋生态学家而言，种群数量下降至这一水平将被定性为“枯竭”，这是一个“颇具贬义的字眼”。科学家们得出的最终结论是，63%的咸水鱼类资源已经耗尽，所剩资源“低于我们的目标范围，”沃姆博士如是说。
但是，两大阵营也一致认为，在美国等渔业管理比较完善的地区，鱼类资源正逐步恢复或保持稳定。科学家们在研究报告中写到，在一些地区实施休渔政策、限制使用某些渔具、对个体渔民、社区等有关各方合理分配捕鱼量等一些管理政策将有助于面临枯竭的鱼类资源逐步得到恢复。
参与该项研究的科学家们称，与最高可持续捕鱼量相比，设定一个统筹整个海洋环境健康发展的标准更有意义。所谓最高可持续捕鱼量是指在不威胁某一鱼类资源存续的前提下在某一地区的最高捕鱼限量。科学家们也一致认为，解决之道不仅仅在于制定完善的渔业管理方法，还在于有无将管理方法落到实处的政治意愿，尽管实施之初会给经济发展带来一定影响。
穆拉维斯基博士说，鉴于该报告代表了两大阵营的共同观点，报告中得出的相关结论将会产生巨大影响。他说，“两大阵营明确表示双方共识大于分歧，这有助于提振信心。”沃姆博士在周三举行的新闻发布会上称，他希望自己能活到 2048 年，到那时自己将届 79 岁高龄。他说，倘能如愿，“我将举办一个海鲜派对，至少这是一个愿望”。
