印度应该效仿中国在拯救森林人上找到出路 [英国媒体]

-------------译者：magicqueen99-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------



While China has given more than 400 million people legal rights over forest land vast swaths of forestry in India are being degraded leaving locals without land

当中国当局给予超过四亿人（这里数量级错了吧，估计是四百万）合法林权时，印度广袤的森林却在退化，使很多原住民失去了土地。

There was a time when the area leading up to the village of Usku Dadjo in the state of Jharkhand east India was dense forest. But because residents did not have the right to manage their land the forest was steadily degraded by outsiders. Now only sand and scrub remain.

印度东部的贾坎德邦，茂密的森林曾经一直延伸到乌斯库.达卓村。但是因为当地居民无权管理他们的土地，森林被外来者持续地破坏。现在仅剩沙土和灌木。

Last year the community started to reclaim traditional lands using India’s groundbreaking 2006 Forest Rights Act. While the community has not yet received any response from the government residents have put up signs asserting their right to the land.

从去年开始，该社区根据印度开创性的2006林权法案，收回传统的林地。虽然该社区尚未得到政府任何回应，但是居民们已经张贴标记，声明自己对土地的所有权。

The struggle of communities like Usku Dadjo is lixed to global efforts to conserve forests reduce poverty and achieve development with dignity for marginalised people.

象乌斯库.达卓村这样的社区的抗争，和全球范围内的让边缘化人群保持尊严的同时，保护森林、减少贫困、实现发展的努力有关。

-------------译者：magicqueen99-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

China and India have a combined total of approximately 675 million forest dwellers (pdf) but the two countries have adopted remarkably different approaches to protecting forests and extending rights to traditional inhabitants.

中印居住在森林地区的居民总计约6.75亿人，但是两国采取了截然不同的方式来保护森林和增加原住民权利。

China has implemented one of Asia’s most successful forest tenure reforms: more than 400 million people have been given direct rights over more than 100m hectares (247m acres) of forest.

中国实施了一项亚洲最成功的林权制度改革：超过4亿人拥有超过一亿公顷（2.47亿英亩）森林的直接权利。

Land ownership has been shifting out of the public domain into the hands of local communities and households with nearly 60% of China’s forests now legally owned by collectives (pdf). Since China has implemented these reforms farmers’ incomes have steadily increased and the government has invested more than $50bn (￡38bn) in programmes supporting farmers and households for environmental restoration helping to ease poverty and mitigate the effects of climate change.

土地所有权已从公共领域转移到当地社区和家庭，近60%的中国森林现在归集体合法所有。自中国实施了这些改革，农民收入稳步增加，政府已在帮助农民及其家庭用于退耕还林、缓解贫困和减轻气候变化的影响的项目上，总投资超过500亿美元（380亿英镑）  。

-------------译者：莫莫莫-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

The Indian government hopes to emulate China’s economic growth and rapid industrial development. Yet growing discontent within the forests is casting doubt on this agenda. The Forest Rights Act is largely dormant – institutionally ignored and unimplemented – while the state maintains a tight grip over forests to the detriment of the environment and inhabitants.

印度政府希望模仿中国的经济增长和快速工业发展。然而森林方面日益增长的不满在这一议程上增加了疑问。林权法案很大程度处于休眠状态--在制度上忽视和不执行--同时国家牢牢的将森林掌控在自己手中，对环境和居民造成了不利影响。

What is the significance of democracy if an autocratic state can successfully devolve decision-making over forests and a fiercely democratic one cannot recognise the rights of its citizens in accordance with its own laws?

如果一个毒菜国家能够成功地下放森林的决策权而一个强烈民主的国家却不能承认公民的权利同自己国家的法律保持一致那么什么是民主的意义?

-------------译者：青盆edu-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

In China the decision to devolve authority over forests to local communities and households came less from a belief in rights and more from realities. The central government formulated its policy on collective forest reform after it was tested at a provincial level: community rights were found to be effective in protecting forests and boosting the rural economy.

在中国，政府把森林的管理权下放给当地的集体和家庭，作出这一决策更多是出于对现实情况的考虑，而不是对权利的信仰。经过省一级的试点之后，中央政府制定政策以实施集体林权改革：权利下放给集体的做法在保护森林、刺激农村经济发展上卓有成效。

Unlike China the decision to democratise India’s forests through the act did not come from the top but evolved from a feeling of disenfranchisement among people in the forests.

和中国不同，通过法案实现印度林权民主化的推动力并不是来自于政府高层，而是由人们质疑森林人的权利被剥夺的情绪发展而来 。


-------------译者：莫莫莫-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

William Mo Tiller 23 Jul 2016 2:44
One wonders if civilization would not have been better off staying in the woods without guns bombs and toxic-spewing industry.

有人可能会想，如果没有枪炮和有毒的工业，只待在丛林里的人类文明是否会变得更好？

stevenats 23 Jul 2016 3:28
China may have done okay on forest reforms but it is important not to forget that it is the same China that has forcibly displaced millions of people with hundreds of thousands of deaths taking place over the previous decades all for rapid development. That is something that can never happen in India due to its democratic processes (albeit very slow and frustrating).

中国也许在森林改革方面做得还可以但是千万不要忘记也是这个国家数百万人被迫流离失所并且其中成千上万的人死亡这些全部发生在早期都是为了快速发展.这在印度是不可能发生的多亏了它的民主进程(即使非常慢而且令人沮丧).

steady2  stevenats 23 Jul 2016 4:50
Hundreds of thousands of deaths? Are you saying the Chinese government has killed hundreds of thousands of people in forced relocations? Evidence?

成千上万的人死亡?你是说中国政府在强制拆迁中杀了成千上万的人吗?证据呢?

-------------译者：道角-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

stevenats  steady2 23 Jul 2016 7:21
Steady2 - According to most estimates (including Chinese experts such as Yang Jisheng) upwards of 50 million deaths took place due to the forced agricultural collectivization programmes up until the mid 1960s. Some 36 million deaths are estimated to have taken place just during the Great Leap Forward. In more recent times (mid 1990s to 200s) land from some 40 million Chinese peasants was forcibly requisitioned for urban development. There are multiple sources widely published where you can verify these figures. China's economic development has certainly been extraordinarily impressive in terms of its speed as well as scale but the fact remains that this has only been possible because the Chinese government has been to implement programmes without having to obtain the consensus of the majority population and regardless of the human cost. In fact the Chinese Government itself has often pointed to its own economic success (and relative lack of success of other countries) as proof that democracy is not the best form of government. Ultimately this is a moot point and it depends on what value you place on human life.

Steady2 -据大多数研究者估计（包括中国专家如杨继绳），至上世纪60年代中期，超过5000万人因强制农业集体化运动（译注：农村人民公社化运动）死亡。仅大跃进期间估计就有大约3600万人死亡。更近些时期（上世纪90年代中期以来），约4000万中国农民的土地被强行征用于城市发展。你可以从广泛发表的多个来源验证这些数字。中国的经济发展无疑是非常令人印象深刻的，它的速度和规模。但事实仍然是，中国得以发展只可能是因为中国政府一贯以来不必获得大多数人口的共识便实施各种计划，也无视人力成本。事实上，中国政府本身也经常拿自己的经济成功（和其他国家的相对欠缺）来证明民主不是最好的政府形式。这是一个有争议的终极问题，它取决于你对人的生命价值的认识。

-------------译者：单身赐我力量-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

Pangxiaodi  stevenats 23 Jul 2016 7:45
"China pulled 680m people out of misery in 1981-2010 and reduced its extreme-poverty rate from 84% in 1980 to 10% now"
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim

从1981年到2010年，中国使6.8亿人脱离了贫困，而且使极度贫困的比例由84%减少到10%。

Floppy1000 23 Jul 2016 6:37
So India is copying china....

所以印度正在抄袭中国。。。

SenorSol  Floppy1000 24 Jul 2016 19:29
I wish they'd copy the Chinese trains!!

我希望它们能学习中国的列车！（高铁）

-------------译者：道角-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

Noahsnark707 23 Jul 2016 8:10
Article is right.
While when it comes to Minorities in India Muslims and to a certain extent lower castes occupy the limelight. This is because they have powerful political groups and in the case of Muslims have a sympathetic left wing media that highlights their issues.
The Adivasis who have the worst lot in life sure they have some reserved constituencies as some bones but besides that they have the worst quality of life. Subject to a vast scale of abuses from the government and from the Maoist guerillas who purport to support them.
I am not a right wing or left wing guy. But as an indian I feel Adivasis are the worst of and they clearly need help. No one gives a damn.

文章是对的。
而说到印度的少数民族，穆斯林和一定程度的低种姓占据了风头。这是因为他们有强大的政治团体，就穆斯林来说，有一个同情他们的左翼媒体突出他们的问题。
原住民过得最糟糕，当然他们有一些保留选区作为骨干，但除此以外他们的生活质量是最差的。受到来自政府的大规模侵犯，声称支持他们的毛派游击队也侵犯他们。
我不是右翼或左翼。但作为一个印度人，我觉得原住民是过得最糟糕的，他们显然需要帮助。毫无人在乎。

-------------译者：Linsanity2018-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

Kavi Mazumdar  Noahsnark707 23 Jul 2016 10:03
The worst off people in the country are the Adivasis and the low caste muslims. Ironically they keep supporting the same parties that kept them poor for generations.

在印度国内，日子过得最苦的是那些原住民和低种姓的穆斯林。讽刺的是，这些人还一直支持那些导致他们世世代代都处于贫困之中的政党。

canbeanybody 23 Jul 2016 14:21
"India should follow China to find a way out of the woods on saving forest people"
China and India have a lot in common and it is not the case "one to follow the other" but working together for better of both people. Thus forest people in India shall be saved by India whereas forest people in China shall be saved by China. Experience in managing the woods may also be shared between China and India.

“印度应该效仿中国，找到一个救助林中居民的方法”
中国和印度有许多相似之处，不应该是其中一方效仿另一方，而是双方要携手共事，造福两国人民。中国和印度需要救助各自的林中居民，两国还可以分享森林管理方面的经验。

-------------译者：绿叶氧气-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

indusengineer 23 Jul 2016 17:36
While China has given more than 400 million people legal rights over forest land vast swaths of forestry in India are being degraded leaving locals without land

当中国当局给予超过四亿人（这里数量级错了吧，估计是四百万）合法林权时，印度广袤的森林却在退化，使很多原住民失去了土地。

So much for the so-called "world's largest democracy". Still a lot of ignorant would never pay attention to this "fact"...!

还有那么多人吹捧所谓的“世界上最大的民主国家”。而这些无知的人们是永远不会注意到这样一个“事实”的。。。！

Ironman12  indusengineer 23 Jul 2016 23:36
I will bite....we are so undemocratic that we can't even purchase a plot of land in Kashmir whereas our taxes are helping in educating the Kashmiris..

我真的不知道为什么。。。我们国家如此的不民主以至于我们甚至都没有办法在克什米尔买块地，然而政府却用我们的缴纳的税款供克什米尔人上学。

remimartin  indusengineer 24 Jul 2016 2:51
I understand it is hard to grasp the idea of democracy for a Pakistani.

我知道对于一个巴基斯坦人来说，理解民主的意思是很难的

Ironman12 23 Jul 2016 23:43
Comparing China to India is like comparing apples to orange。

拿中国和印度对比就像拿苹果与橙子做对比，两者没有可比性。

We are already combating with illegal logging illegal mining and sand theft on the banks of the rivers imagine what would happen if we let people own the forests? This model won't work.

我们已经在打击非法采伐，非法采矿以及河两岸的盗沙行为，想象一下，如果我们把森林还给当地人管理，会发生什么？这种模式在印度是行不通的。

-------------译者：zhonghaoww-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

newellalan  Ironman12 24 Jul 2016 0:31
I trust the pride of individual ownership over the greed of corporations.

我相信个人所有权的荣誉高于公司的贪婪。

GloryWhole  Ironman12 24 Jul 2016 4:20
The point is that by empowering local people through ownership rights you give them an economic stake in saving the forest so they are less likely to log illegally themselves. Plus by 'converting poachers to game-keepers' and setting them to police the forests you are making it harder for outsiders to encroach on the land thus hopefully putting a stop to illegal logging and all the other criminal activity you mention.

关键是通过授予当地人民林权使得这些人在保护森林中获取了经济利益，所以他们就不太会去非法砍树了。而且，通过“将这些偷猎者变化为看守者” 并且让他们巡查森林，外来者就很难侵犯到这片土地，这样的话希望可以停止非法伐木或者其他你提到的犯罪行为。

Alex Wijaya 24 Jul 2016 0:18
the different between Indians and Chinese is that Indians believe they have rights while the Chinese believe they have obligations. While one keep demanding from the country other keep giving to the country.

印度和中国不同在印度人相信他们拥有权利而中国人相信他们拥有义务。 一个在不停的从国家中汲取，另一个不断的给予国家。

-------------译者：道角-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

GloryWhole  Alex Wijaya 24 Jul 2016 4:13
And another difference is that you deal in offensive racial stereotypes with no basis in reality while normal people prefer to stick with the facts.

另一个区别是你怀有种族攻击成见，这没有现实基础，而正常人更喜欢坚持事实。

GloryWhole 24 Jul 2016 4:12
Report on Chinese devolving power to local level sounds promising but I need to see more facts/analysis plus go and see for myself and interview locals about the reality of the scheme. Butblet's say its true then this sounds wonderful and yup let's see the model rolled out across the planet - except few states are governed like China so I doubt this could even be considered in places like Brasil or Equador. Less cheering news about Indian forests/local land rights. Hope things improve.
In general I think political powers should be devolved to the lowest posdible admin level so people have greatest control over stuff that affects them most particularly. I would also support principle of moving essential resources to shared not-for-profit ownership again giving priority to local owners. Not just India Britain could learn a lot from China about democratising and communalising to empower people as far as possible. Gawd would love to have a plot of forest/farmland to live on if it means escaping from city living 9-5 working going 'self-sufficient' enjoying the 'good life'. Justva dream for most of us sadly.

中国将权力下放到地方一级的报道听起来充满希望，但是我需要看到更多的事实/分析，还要亲自走走看看，就该方案的现状采访当地人。Butblet 说它是真的，那么这听起来很棒。是啊，让我们看看这个模式是否可以席卷全球——除了少数几个像中国那样管理的国家或许可行，我怀疑像在巴西和厄瓜多尔这样的国家可能都行不通。所以这对印度森林和当地居民土地权来说并非那么激动人心的消息。希望事情能有改进。
总的来说，我认为政治权力应该下放至最低的管理层级，如此人民对切身相关的事物才有最大的控制权。我也支持此原则：再次将必需基础资源作为共有非营利股权，当地业主优先。不止印度，英国也可以从中国的民主化和公有化上学到许多东西，尽可能地使人民富强。神啊，要是能有一块森林/农田生活其中，逃离城市朝九晚五的工作，过上“自给自足”的日子，享受“美好生活”，那该有多好。悲哀的是对大多数人来说这不过是个的梦。

-------------译者：Linsanity2018-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

annaper123 24 Jul 2016 14:43
Meanwhile
Uttar Pradesh attempts to plant 50 million trees in 24 hours sadly ignored by the western media as there is no atrocity literature or sensationalism that could be propagated. 
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uttar-pradesh-attempts-plant-50-million-trees-24-hours-smash-world-record-1570087

北方邦试图在24小时内种植5000万棵树。悲哀的是西方媒体对此视而不见，因为这其中不包含有那些便于成为众人谈资的暴行或者那些易于传开的耸人听闻的猛料。

SenorSol  annaper123 24 Jul 2016 19:28
I'd say this proves that you're talking unmitigated bollocks...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/15/india-plants-50-million-trees-in-24-hours/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/uttar-pradesh-india-plants-50-million-trees-24-hours-world-record_us_57893281e4b03fc3ee50ce05
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/07/india-plants-50-million-trees-uttar-pradesh-reforestation/
You're obviously a paid thumbsucker and thin-skinned conspiracy theorist who sees an anti-India plot in virtually everything!!

以下这些文章证明了你所说的完全是胡说八道。
你显然是一个受雇的发帖者和神经过敏的阴谋论者，从任何事情中都想找出反印的阴谋。

-------------译者：Linsanity2018-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

Warren37  annaper123 25 Jul 2016 2:32
"Uttar Pradesh attempts to plant 50 million trees in 24 hours ......."
Was the attempt successful? How many trees survived?
In any case if trees are planted elsewhere can any forest be bulldozed without considering the plight of local inhabitants?

“北方邦试图在24小时内种植5000万棵树······”
这个尝试是否成功？其中有多少树成活了？
无论如何，如果树是种在别处的，人们能否不用考虑当地居民的困境就把森林推平？

Warren37  SenorSol 25 Jul 2016 2:39
annaper123 just refuses to accept any comment which is not complimentary towards India.

任何没有赞美印度的评论，annaper123都拒绝接受。

Chinmay 24 Jul 2016 15:25 
We need to take these so called "forest people" out of their forests and help bring them into the 21st century.

我们需要把这些所谓的“林中居民”从森林里带出来，将他们带进21世纪。