世界荒野大会（WILD11）：绿会推广什么是荒野？

荒野的三种含义Three meanings of wilderness

术语“荒野”会在很多不同的情境下使用。它是一个生物描述符，主要用来指那些生态完整的地方；它也是一种保护区分类，指的是一个长期维护的荒野环境类别，同时仍允许将那些与荒野品质相适应的部分供人类使用。它也被用来描述人类文化的一个重要层面，人类与所有其他物种一样，都生于荒野之中：他们在洞穴、树木和开放的大草原中进化了数百万年（Martin＆Robles Gil，2009）。 使问题更加复杂化的是，术语“荒野”通常在口语中描述广泛的环境 - 从过度发展的城市公园到真正的野外景观 – 完全取决于个人的经验和观点。

The term “wilderness” is used in a variety of ways. It is a biological descriptor, referring to places that are mainly ecologically intact. It is a type of protected-area classification, referring to a category of protected areas that seek to maintain wilderness quality over time, while still allowing for human uses that are compatible with those wilderness qualities. It is also used to describe an essential dimension of human culture, which is that humans, like all other species, were born in the wilderness: they evolved for millions of years in caves, trees and open savannahs (Martin & Robles Gil, 2009). To complicate matters further, the term wilderness is often used colloquially to describe a wide range of environments—from an overgrown urban park to a truly wild landscape—depending on the viewer’s personal experience and perspective.

荒野的这三种含义在下面进一步描述。虽然这些指南的重点是在荒野保护区，但重要的是要牢记该术语的另外两个含义。这两者对其自身而言是很重要的，并且也指导着荒野保护区的管理。同样值得注意的是，尽管“荒野”一词在很多不同的情况下使用，但这种多层次性表明了对人类经验的意义深度和联系，并反映了它持续的强大力量和起到的共鸣效果。

These three meanings of wilderness are described further below. While the focus of these Guidelines is on wilderness protected areas, it is important to keep the other two definitions of the term in mind. Both are important for their own sake, and also in guiding wilderness protected area management. It is also worth noting that while the term wilderness is used in a number of different contexts, this multilayered diversity indicates a depth of meaning to and association with the human experience, and reflects its continuing strength and resonance.

荒野作为一种生物描述符Wilderness as a biological descriptor

在古斯堪的那维亚语中，荒野一词指的是不受人类控制的地方，野生动物可以自由漫游（Nash，1982）。荒野的生物学意义基本上遵循这个词源。在生物学背景下，荒野可以广泛地定义为生物学和生态学基本完好的景观（即，就其生态系统过程和物种集合而言），大多没有工业基础设施，并且没有显着的人为干扰（Kormos，2008; Watson等，2009）。尽管这些特征明显存在于世界范围内，但仍有可能确定人为干扰最小的地方。为了绘制具有全球意义的荒野地区，Mittermeier等人（2003年）规定了三项荒地标准和测量阈值：（1）规模，如最小面积为100万公顷，（2）人口密度低，如每平方公里少于5人，（3）完整性，例如至少70％的主要栖息地仍然以生态区为基础。这一分析表明，大约地球有44％仍处于荒野状态。

In Old Norse, the term wilderness refers to land that is not under human control and where wild animals roam freely (Nash, 1982). The biological meaning of wilderness essentially follows this etymology. In a biological context, wilderness can be defined broadly as a landscape that is biologically and ecologically largely intact (that is, with respect to their ecosystems, species assemblages and ecosystem processes), mostly free of industrial infrastructure, and without significant human interference (Kormos, 2008; Watson, et al., 2009). While these qualities clearly exist on a spectrum, it is nonetheless possible to identify wild places around the world where human disturbance remains at a minimum. To map wilderness areas of global significance, Mittermeier, et al. (2003), specified three wilderness criteria and thresholds for measuring them: (1) size, such as a minimum area of 1 million hectares, (2) low population density, such as fewer than five people per square kilometre, and (3) intactness, such as at least 70 per cent of primary habitat remaining on an ecoregion basis. This analysis indicated roughly 44 per cent of the planet remained in a wilderness condition.

荒野作为一种保护区分类Wilderness as a protected area classification

世界保护区委员会（IUCN）保护区管理指导原则包括将荒野定为1b类，并界定荒野保护区（有关IUCN定义的更多讨论，请参阅第1.2节）。这些准则认识到，政治复杂性和管理挑战有时可能需要采取渐进的方式来建立荒野保护区。这可能从较小和/或较不完整的受保护区域开始，这些区域可能需要恢复并随着时间的推移建立更大、更完整的区域。因此，1b类场地可能包括大型高度完整的区域同时可能改善荒野品质，扩大其边界的较小区域。国家级别或国家以下各级的许多荒野法律和政策认识到，在1b类下有一些值得保护的领域，它们可能现在不会完全符合荒野标准，但有可能在未来拥有荒野特质。

The World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN) Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories include wilderness as Category 1b and define wilderness protected areas (see Section 1.2 for more discussion on the IUCN definition). These Guidelines recognize that political complexities and management challenges may sometimes require an incremental approach to establishing wilderness protected areas. This can involve starting with smaller and/or less intact protected areas that may require restoration and building up to larger, more intact areas over time. Thus, Category 1b sites may include large, highly intact areas as well as smaller areas whose wilderness qualities can be improved or whose boundaries may be expanded. Many wilderness laws and policies at national or subnational levels recognize that there are areas worth protecting under Category 1b, which may not fully meet a wilderness standard immediately, but have good potential to achieve wilderness qualities in the future.

荒野保护区的另一个重要方面是它们不会把人排除在外（见1.6节）。相反，它们排除了与保持该地区的荒野特质不相容的某些人类用途。IUCN保护区管理类别1b承认荒野保护区内的各种兼容性用途，在荒野法律和政策的许多方面也是如此（见第1.4节）。

Another important aspect of wilderness protected areas is that they do not exclude people (see Section 1.6). Rather, they exclude certain human uses that are not compatible with maintaining an area’s wilderness qualities. IUCN protected area management Category 1b recognizes a wide range of compatible uses in wilderness protected areas, as do many wilderness laws and policies (see Section 1.4).

荒野和人类社会Wilderness and human society

人类在荒野中进化的事实对于理解“荒野”这个词至关重要。荒野是指野生的、生物完整的地方，但这个术语也意味着人类与野性的关系。这种关系可以采取多种形式。例如，许多生活在荒野地区附近或内部的土着居民可能甚至没有什么词来描述荒野，因为他们并不认为荒野是什么与众不同的：它们在文化上和个体层面上与野地和/或海景相融合，他们从来没有将其从日常生活中分离或远离社区的经历（参见第1.6节和第2.3节）（国际生存杂志，2014）。

The fact that humans evolved in wild nature is fundamental to understanding the term wilderness. Wilderness refers to wild, biologically intact places, but the term also implies the presence of a human relationship with wild nature. That relationship can take many forms. For example, many Indigenous Peoples living near or within wilderness areas may not even have a word that equates to wilderness because they do not view wilderness as something distinct from themselves: they are culturally and personally integrated with the wild land and/or seascape, and have no experience of these being separate from their everyday lives or remote from their community (see Section 1.6 and Section 2.3) (Survival International, 2014).

荒野地区也可以是一种神圣的景观或自然景观，由特定宗教或灵性的某些人或追随者来到此进行参观（见第4.9节）。对于城市居民而言，荒野地区可能用来娱乐，心灵净化或者两者兼具。荒野地区在为人类和环境有价值的生态系统服务是至关重要的，主要包含四方面的服务内容：支持、供应、文化和管理。与野性的人际关系是荒野这个词中重要组成部分。荒野不会将人抛出在外，相反，荒野意味着一种基本的人际关系。

A wilderness area can also be a sacred landscape or a sacred natural site, visited by certain peoples or followers of a particular religion or spirituality (see Section 4.9). To an urban resident, a wilderness area may be a place for recreation, spiritual renewal, or both. Wilderness areas are also vital for the ecosystem services that are of value to humans and the environment through the four categories of services: support, provisioning, cultural and regulating. The human relationship with wild nature is an essential component of the term wilderness. Wilderness does not exclude people. On the contrary, wilderness implies a fundamental human relationship.

对于荒野的批判Critiques of wilderness

如果不承认这个术语会引起争议和批评，那么对荒野这个术语的讨论是不完整的。下面简要总结一些批评的内容。

A discussion of the term wilderness is incomplete without acknowledging that the term attracts controversy and criticism. Some of these threads of criticism are summarized briefly below.

批判1：一些土著人民因为自然文化与“西方化”、发达、以时间为驱动文化之间的文化鸿沟，而抵制使用“荒野”一词，并且由于将原居民被驱逐出境而把荒野的概念被用于描述没有人类的土地。这些准则的一个基本目标是明确荒野不是将人的使用排除在外（见第1.4节），特别是土著居民的使用（见第1.6节）。

Critique 1: Some Indigenous Peoples resist using the term wilderness because of the cultural divide between their nature-based cultures and those of ‘westernized’, developed and time-driven cultures and because the wilderness concept was used to describe lands that were free of human habitation only because the indigenous inhabitants had been driven out. One essential goal of these Guidelines is to establish clearly and unequivocally that wilderness is not intended to exclude human use (see Section 1.4) and in particular use by Indigenous Peoples (see Section 1.6).

批判2：“新绿”汇集了一些相关的荒野评论（Karieva＆Marvier，2012）。 Weurthner等人（2014年）对这次新绿运动提出的各种对荒野的批评以及来自著名保护主义者和学者的一系列文章作出了热烈而有力的辩护。

Critique 2: ‘Neo-greens’ bring together a number of related critiques of wilderness (Karieva & Marvier, 2012). Weurthner, et al., (2014) present both a good description of the various criticisms of wilderness promulgated by this neo-green movement and a series of essays from noted conservationists and academics in spirited and cogent defense.

新绿运动的第一个批评是后现代的反建构主义者认为没有荒野这样的东西。这项建议指出，荒野概念现在是一个抹黑了的19世纪浪漫理想，忽视了土着居民，并且已经不再相关，因为人类对地球的影响现在非常普遍（由于污染、气候变化、猖獗的工业基础设施以及其他因素），地球上没有任何东西是真正原始的。

The first criticism from the neo-green movement is the post-modern, de-constructionist suggestion that there is no such thing as wilderness. This suggestion states that the wilderness concept is now a discredited 19th-century romantic ideal that ignored Indigenous Peoples and is no longer relevant because human impact on the planet is now so pervasive (as a result of pollution, climate change, rampant industrial infrastructure, and other factors) that there is nothing that remains on earth that is truly pristine.

虽然地球上确实很少有地方没有受到人类影响，但“原始”并不是“现在”，并且从来没有被用来作为世界上任何保护区或荒野系统的定义标准，尽管我们有时可以看到会将该词用作一般描述词或唤起语言。此外，我们完全有可能确定地球上主要处于荒野状态的大面积地区 - 还有更多可以恢复或重新覆盖的地区 - 即使毫无疑问，人类足迹在全球迅速扩张（见第4.7节）。土著居民是荒野运动的重要保护伙伴 - 不能 - 也不应该忽视荒野的定义。

Although it is true that there are few places on the planet that can be considered untouched by human influence, pristine is not now and has never been used as a qualifying or defining criteria in any protected area or wilderness system in the world, although one sees use of the word on occasion as a general descriptor or as evocative language. Moreover, it is entirely possible to identify large areas on the planet that are predominantly in a wilderness condition—and many more that could be restored or rewilded—even if it is undoubtedly true that the human footprint is expanding very rapidly globally (see Section 4.7). Indigenous Peoples are important conservation partners in the wilderness movement and are not—and should not be—ignored by any definition of wilderness.

新绿运动的一个批判是荒野和其他保护区在生物多样性保护中的失败实验结果。这一论点指出，全球生物多样性持续下降，物种灭绝日益加剧，这是荒野保护和其他保护区失败的表现依据。这忽视了大量越来越多的文献的内容，这些文献指出保护区在拥有足够预算和专业人员的情况下可以获得成功，这是以一种参与性的方式与当地社区共同设计和实施的，并且充分实施以权利为基础的方法，而且这些保护区并没有被严重腐败和非法使用所完全破坏。

A related critique from the neo-green movement is that wilderness and other protected areas are failed experiments in conservation. This line of argument points to the continued decline of biodiversity and increasing species extinctions globally as prima facie evidence that wilderness protection and other protected areas have failed. This ignores a substantial and growing body of literature pointing to the success of protected areas where they have adequate budgets and professional staff, are designed and implemented in a participatory manner in concert with local communities and fully implementing rights-based approaches, and where they are not completely undermined by severe corruption and illegal use.

批判3：最后，第三个密切相关的批评是，荒野只是一个“失败的案例”。这一论点表明，我们这个星球上最终会剩余的野生地数量是注定的，因为全球人口扩大和资源使用的增加将使保护区超出本身负荷，最终地球就只剩下几个荒野。这个论点的必然结果是，我们会进入一个新的地质环境退化时代，也就是人类世地质环境，其实际上是一个良性的发展：技术的进步让我们能够像管理花园一般来管理地球，获得其所给予的好处（ Marris，2011）。虽然人类的聪明才智和新技术无疑将在一个更拥挤的星球上发挥重要作用，但这项技术性的建议认为，我们会安全的消灭掉我们进化的生物圈，并且这种生物圈已经养育了我们数百万年，这是非常不切实际的。

Critique 3: Finally, a third and also closely related critique is that wilderness is simply a ‘lost cause’. This argument suggests that our planet’s remaining wild places are doomed because expanding global populations and increasing resource use will overwhelm protected areas, ultimately leaving only a few remaining patches of wild nature on the planet. A corollary to this argument is that our entry into a new geological epoch of environmental degradation, the Anthropocene, is in fact a benign development: advances in technology will allow us to manage the planet in a garden-like state for the benefit of humanity (Marris, 2011). While human ingenuity and new technology will undoubtedly be critical on a more crowded planet, this technocratic suggestion that we can safely do away with the biosphere in which we evolved and which has nurtured us for millions of years is dangerously unrealistic.

荒野的重要性Importance of wilderness

正如一些评论家所指出的，荒野和荒野保护区远不会像以前那样被边缘化。首先，因为人们越来越意识到自然的内在价值——荒野本身独一无二的价值，超越了人类的评价或联系，例如对于荒野本身，以及尊重和保护地球生命多样性的重要性。 其次，这是因为人们越来越认识到，我们都依赖的生态系统，如淡水质量和碳固存，与生物多样性和生态完整性紧密相连并依赖于生态系统。第三，人们认识到在许多情况下摧毁荒野地区意味着丧失这些地区惊人的文化和语言多样性。因此，无论是从政府保护区还是由社区、土著居民或私营部门领导的倡议来看，荒野保护的重要性日益增加。

Far from being marginalized as some critics have suggested, wilderness and wilderness protected areas are more relevant than ever. First, because there is a growing appreciation of the intrinsic value of nature—those values unique to wilderness itself and beyond any human evaluation or connection, e.g., wilderness for wilderness’s sake—and the importance of respecting and protecting the diversity of life on earth. Second, because there is increasing understanding that the ecosystem services we all depend on, such as freshwater quality and carbon sequestration, are closely linked to and dependent on biodiversity and ecological integrity. Third, because of the realization that destroying wilderness areas in many cases means losing the incredible cultural and linguistic diversity these areas sustain. Thus, wilderness conservation, whether through government protected areas or initiatives led by communities, Indigenous Peoples or the private sector, is growing in importance.

这一事实清晰地体现在以下组织和个人对保护地球的呼吁和实现半个地球的生态互联：世界荒野代表大会，2014年世界自然保护联盟，生物多样性领导论坛，越来越多的非政府组织（如WILD基金会、加拿大公园和荒野协会）和世界上一流的生物保护学家E.O. Wilson等等（Wilson，2016）。然而，为了使荒野保护发挥其全部潜力，我们需要对人与自然的关系产生新的看法：尊重、互惠和伙伴关系，这是大多数土著居民比其他文化更为熟悉的一种思想和实践。

This fact is clearly reflected in the call to protect and ecologically interconnect half the planet, from the World Wilderness Congresses; the IUCN World Parks Congress 2014; the Biodiversity Leadership Forum; a growing number of non-governmental organizations, such as the WILD Foundation, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society; and the world’s foremost conservation biologist E.O. Wilson (Wilson, 2016). For wilderness conservation to reach its full potential, however, we will need to generate a new view of the human relationship to nature: one of respect, reciprocity, and partnership, a philosophy and practice far more familiar to most Indigenous Peoples than to other cultures.

文章来源：

https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/PAG-025.pdf

翻译/Mine  审/shuya  编/Angel