{"title":"安全与保护:非法野生动物贸易的政治","authors":"Geoffrey A Wandesforde-Smith","doi":"10.1162/glep_r_00679","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Rosaleen Duffy became a prominent student and critic of international wildlife conservation when she published Killing for Conservation (Duffy 2000), a wonderfully detailed study of wildlife policy in Zimbabwe. It is a work that still ranks—along with Politicians and Poachers (Gibson 1999), which also dealt with Zambia and Kenya—as a landmark contribution to our understanding of how national interests in African wildlife become entangled with and are reshaped by, and to some extent in turn reshape, the interests of a wide range of other actors who claim a legitimate interest in the fate of African wildlife. These actors include notably, but not exclusively, international conservation nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The key analytical assumption both Duffy and Gibson made in those early books was that the fate of African wildlife did, and should, depend first and foremost on the domestic politics of the African countries responsible after independence for managing the wildlife populations living within their borders. They employed different theoretical lenses—political ecology for Duffy and political economy for Gibson—but the results in both cases gave insights into the dynamics of wildlife policies in Africa that are unequaled in the last two decades in the richness and depth of their political analysis. Wildlife between Empire and Nation in Twentieth-Century Africa (Schauer 2019), though, has made a further notable addition to the literature by exploiting archival rather than field research and by adding Tanzania, Uganda, and Malawi to the mix of covered countries. So, what happened over the last twenty years or so to the assumption that domestic politics matter for the fate of African wildlife, which has over that same span of time become a prominent and sustained focus of both scholarly and public interest in global environmental politics? This is an important question, because, in Security and Conservation, Duffy’s most recent book, African politicians and political institutions appear, at best, as bit players in the stories she tells about evolving efforts to contain and constrain the illegal wildlife trade, efforts that have equivalents in other parts of the world. The obvious answer to this question is that conservation has changed. Indeed, in the veryfirst sentence of her newest book, Duffy asserts that the political","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":"22 1","pages":"205-208"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Security and Conservation: The Politics of the Illegal Wildlife Trade by Rosaleen Duffy\",\"authors\":\"Geoffrey A Wandesforde-Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/glep_r_00679\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Rosaleen Duffy became a prominent student and critic of international wildlife conservation when she published Killing for Conservation (Duffy 2000), a wonderfully detailed study of wildlife policy in Zimbabwe. It is a work that still ranks—along with Politicians and Poachers (Gibson 1999), which also dealt with Zambia and Kenya—as a landmark contribution to our understanding of how national interests in African wildlife become entangled with and are reshaped by, and to some extent in turn reshape, the interests of a wide range of other actors who claim a legitimate interest in the fate of African wildlife. These actors include notably, but not exclusively, international conservation nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The key analytical assumption both Duffy and Gibson made in those early books was that the fate of African wildlife did, and should, depend first and foremost on the domestic politics of the African countries responsible after independence for managing the wildlife populations living within their borders. They employed different theoretical lenses—political ecology for Duffy and political economy for Gibson—but the results in both cases gave insights into the dynamics of wildlife policies in Africa that are unequaled in the last two decades in the richness and depth of their political analysis. Wildlife between Empire and Nation in Twentieth-Century Africa (Schauer 2019), though, has made a further notable addition to the literature by exploiting archival rather than field research and by adding Tanzania, Uganda, and Malawi to the mix of covered countries. So, what happened over the last twenty years or so to the assumption that domestic politics matter for the fate of African wildlife, which has over that same span of time become a prominent and sustained focus of both scholarly and public interest in global environmental politics? This is an important question, because, in Security and Conservation, Duffy’s most recent book, African politicians and political institutions appear, at best, as bit players in the stories she tells about evolving efforts to contain and constrain the illegal wildlife trade, efforts that have equivalents in other parts of the world. The obvious answer to this question is that conservation has changed. Indeed, in the veryfirst sentence of her newest book, Duffy asserts that the political\",\"PeriodicalId\":47774,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Environmental Politics\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"205-208\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Environmental Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_r_00679\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Environmental Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_r_00679","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
摘要
罗莎琳·达菲(Rosaleen Duffy)出版了《为保护而杀戮》(Killing for conservation, Duffy 2000)一书,详细研究了津巴布韦的野生动物政策,成为国际野生动物保护领域的杰出学生和评论家。这部作品与《政治家和偷猎者》(Gibson 1999)一样,也涉及赞比亚和肯尼亚,对我们理解非洲野生动物的国家利益是如何与其他声称对非洲野生动物的命运有合法利益的广泛行动者的利益纠缠在一起并被重塑,并在某种程度上反过来重塑,这是一部具有里程碑意义的贡献。这些行动者包括(但不完全是)国际保护非政府组织(ngo)。达菲和吉布森在早期著作中提出的关键分析假设是,非洲野生动物的命运确实、也应该首先取决于独立后负责管理其境内野生动物种群的非洲国家的国内政治。他们采用了不同的理论视角——达菲的政治生态学和吉布森的政治经济学——但这两种情况的结果都让我们深入了解了非洲野生动物政策的动态,这在政治分析的丰富性和深度上是过去二十年来无与伦比的。然而,《二十世纪非洲帝国与国家之间的野生动物》(Schauer 2019)通过利用档案而不是实地研究,并将坦桑尼亚、乌干达和马拉维加入到涵盖的国家组合中,为文献做出了进一步引人注目的补充。那么,在过去的二十年里,国内政治对非洲野生动物的命运至关重要的假设发生了什么?在同样的时间里,这已经成为全球环境政治中学术界和公众关注的一个突出和持续的焦点。这是一个重要的问题,因为在达菲的最新著作《安全与保护》中,非洲的政治家和政治机构在她讲述的关于遏制和限制非法野生动物贸易的不断发展的努力中,充其量只是一个小角色,这些努力在世界其他地方也有类似的情况。对于这个问题,显而易见的答案是保护已经改变了。事实上,在她新书的第一句话中,达菲就断言政治
Security and Conservation: The Politics of the Illegal Wildlife Trade by Rosaleen Duffy
Rosaleen Duffy became a prominent student and critic of international wildlife conservation when she published Killing for Conservation (Duffy 2000), a wonderfully detailed study of wildlife policy in Zimbabwe. It is a work that still ranks—along with Politicians and Poachers (Gibson 1999), which also dealt with Zambia and Kenya—as a landmark contribution to our understanding of how national interests in African wildlife become entangled with and are reshaped by, and to some extent in turn reshape, the interests of a wide range of other actors who claim a legitimate interest in the fate of African wildlife. These actors include notably, but not exclusively, international conservation nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The key analytical assumption both Duffy and Gibson made in those early books was that the fate of African wildlife did, and should, depend first and foremost on the domestic politics of the African countries responsible after independence for managing the wildlife populations living within their borders. They employed different theoretical lenses—political ecology for Duffy and political economy for Gibson—but the results in both cases gave insights into the dynamics of wildlife policies in Africa that are unequaled in the last two decades in the richness and depth of their political analysis. Wildlife between Empire and Nation in Twentieth-Century Africa (Schauer 2019), though, has made a further notable addition to the literature by exploiting archival rather than field research and by adding Tanzania, Uganda, and Malawi to the mix of covered countries. So, what happened over the last twenty years or so to the assumption that domestic politics matter for the fate of African wildlife, which has over that same span of time become a prominent and sustained focus of both scholarly and public interest in global environmental politics? This is an important question, because, in Security and Conservation, Duffy’s most recent book, African politicians and political institutions appear, at best, as bit players in the stories she tells about evolving efforts to contain and constrain the illegal wildlife trade, efforts that have equivalents in other parts of the world. The obvious answer to this question is that conservation has changed. Indeed, in the veryfirst sentence of her newest book, Duffy asserts that the political
期刊介绍:
Global Environmental Politics examines the relationship between global political forces and environmental change, with particular attention given to the implications of local-global interactions for environmental management as well as the implications of environmental change for world politics. Each issue is divided into research articles and a shorter forum articles focusing on issues such as the role of states, multilateral institutions and agreements, trade, international finance, corporations, science and technology, and grassroots movements.