Sustainable management is seen as a practical and economical way of protecting species from dying out. Instead of depending on largely ineffective laws against poaching (偷猎), it gives local people a good economic reason to preserve plants and animals. In Zimbabwe, for instance, there is a sustainable management project to protect elephants. Foreign tourists pay large sums of money to kill these animals for sports. This money is then given to the inhabitants of the area where the hunting takes place. In theory, locals will be encouraged to protect elephants, instead of poaching them because of the economic benefit involved. This sounds like a sensible strategy, but it remains to be seen whether it will work. With corruption in these developing countries, some observers are skeptical that the money will actually reach the people it is intended for. Others wonder how effective the locals will be at stopping poachers. There are also questions about whether sustainable management is practical when it comes to protecting forests. In theory, the principle should be the same as with elephants --- allow logging companies to cut down certain number of trees, but not so many as to completely destroy the forest. Sustainable management of forests requires controls on the number of trees which are cut down, as well as investment in replacing them. Because almost all tropical forests are located in countries which desperately need funds from logging, there are few regulations and motive to do this. One solution might be to confirm wood comes from sustainably managed forests. In theory, consumers would buy only this wood and so force logging companies to go "green" or go out of business. Unfortunately, unrestricted logging is so much more profitable that wood prices from managed forests would cost up to five times more --- an increase that consumers, no matter how "green", are unlikely to pay. 小题1:Which of the following statements is true in understanding the "sustainable management"?
|