编者按：6月28日，非洲公园网络特使、大象保护计划特别顾问、联合国《濒危野生动植物种国际贸易公约》(CITES) 上一届秘书长约翰·斯坎伦 (John Scanlon) 先生在德国联邦环境部和自然保育及核能安全部会议上进行了特邀致辞。他与中国绿发会反盗猎工作组的小伙伴们分享了这则致辞。一如既往地，每次读他的论述，都让我们颇受启发。我们认为倾听国际前沿声音有利于推动中国深度参与#全球环境治理# ，有鉴于此，现将全文翻译分享于中国绿发会平台，供我国有关方面和专家们参考。
Nature is sending us a message: Biodiversity loss and wildlife trade as causes of pandemics - German Ministry for the Environment (BMU)
Thank you Chair, and thank you to Minister Svenja Schulze, Ambassador Heusgen,and our good colleagues at the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety for convening this international event Biodiversity loss and wildlife trade as causes of pandemics.
感谢大会主席，感谢环境部长舒尔策（Svenja Schulze），大使霍伊斯根（Heusgen），以及各位在德国联邦环境部（Federal Ministry for the Environment）和自然保育及核能安全部（Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety）的同事。感谢你们组织召开此次题为“生物多样性损失与野生动物贸易是大流行病的源头”的国际会议。
Germany has been a long-standing and strong supporter of global efforts to conserve nature and combat illegal wildlife trade and it is most encouraging to hear the opening remarks of both Minister Schulze, Ambassador Heusgen.
This COVID-19 pandemic has reminded us in a devastating way of the interconnected nature of things, most particularly between economies, the environment, human and wildlife health and welfare. It has raised our awareness of the links between how we treat wildlife and human health.
The likely source of COVID-19, and the known sources of previous epidemics and pandemics[i], show us what conditions make the spillover of deadly viruses from animals to humans more likely.
The risks are real, and the stakes are high, and this pandemic has revealed some serious weaknesses in the system, which must be addressed if we are to avoid future pandemics.
The current international regime for regulating wildlife trade and combating wildlife crime is inadequate both for regulating the wildlife trade, markets and consumption that pose a risk to public health, as well as for ending wildlife crime.
Left as it is our system is not going to prevent the next pandemic. It could, in fact, be raising our potential exposure to zoonotic diseases that can spill over from wild animals to people. We can and must change it.
We also need to show much greater ambition in how we protect, manage and finance biodiverse rich areas, to protect wildlife at source, where it poses no risk to human health, and before it ever enters illegal trade.
These are challenging, global, interconnected, issues requiring a collective response.
CITES sets the legal framework for international wildlife trade. Its decisions are based upon agreed trade and biological criteria[ii]. The risks to public health, or animal health, are not taken into account in its decision making[iii].
In a post COVID-19 world, such a siloed approach cannot be sustained. We need to take a ‘One Health’ approach to wildlife trade[iv]. There are various ways to achieve this objective, while avoiding unintended consequences, preferably by amending CITES, which I do not have time to address today.
However, one way or another, there will be new bans on high-risk wildlife markets and the trade in and consumption of certain wildlife on public health grounds and this will require a more effective global enforcement response. If not, such markets and trade may simply move underground, which will exacerbate rather than diminish the health risks.
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.
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.
Yet, remarkably, despite these facts, there is no global legal agreement on wildlife crime.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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]
We need to focus our collective efforts around large-scale, long-term commitments to biodiverse-rich places that are included in protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and that can deliver multiple benefits.
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.
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.
只要管理恰当，这些地区能保证人们和野生动物的安全，带来稳定和法律秩序，并创造条件吸引游客、降低碳排放量、打击盗猎行为、保护生物多样性，以及在偏远地区创造体面的工作机会。只要通过一类投资窗口，就能实现多项全球承诺。我已经在许多国家见证过这些成果，比如在刚果民主共和国的戈朗巴国家公园（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.
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.
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.
[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.
[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.
[iv] Which seeks to bring public, animal and plant health and the environment closer together
[v] Recent scientific reports show that intact ecosystems are better at sequestering carbon than degraded ones.
[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.
[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.
[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.