2011年11月翻譯資格考試二級(jí)筆譯真題

第一部分 英譯漢 試題一

Study Finds Hope in Saving Saltwater Fish

Can we have our fish and eat it too? An unusual collaboration of marine ecologists and fisheries management scientists says the answer may be yes.

In a research paper in Friday?s issue of the journal Science, the two groups, long at odds with each other, offer a global assessment of the world?s saltwater fish and their environments.

Their conclusions are at once gloomy — overfishing continues to threaten many species — and upbeat: a combination of steps can turn things around. But because antagonism between ecologists and fisheries management experts has been intense, many familiar with the study say the most important factor is that it was done at all.

They say they hope the study will inspire similar collaborations between scientists whose focus is safely exploiting specific natural resources and those interested mainly in conserving them.

“We need to merge those two communities,” said Steve Murawski, chief fis heries scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “This paper starts to bridge that gap.”

The collaboration began in 2006 when Boris Worm, a marine ecologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and other scientists made an alarming prediction: if current trends continue, by 2048 overfishing will have destroyed most commercially important populations of saltwater fish. Ecologists applauded the work. But among fisheries management scientists, reactions ranged from skepticism to fury over what many called an alarmist report.

Among the most prominent critics was Ray Hilborn, a professor of aquatic and fishery sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle. Yet the disagreement did not play out in typical scientific fashion with, as Dr. Hilborn put it, “researchers firing critical papers back and forth.” Instead, he and Dr. Worm found themselves debating the issue on National Public Radio.

“We started talking and found more common ground than we had expected,” Dr. Worm said. Dr. Hilborn recalled thinking that Dr. Worm “actually seemed like a reasonable person.”

The two decided to work together on the issue. They sought and received financing and began organizing workshops at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, an organization sponsored by the National Science Foundation and based at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

At first, Dr. Hilborn said in an interview, “the fisheries management people would go to lunch and the marine ecologists would go to lunch” — separately. But soon they were collecting and sharing data and recruiting more colleagues to analyze it.

Dr. Hilborn said he and Dr. Worm now understood why the ecologists and the management scientists disagreed so sharply in the first place. For one thing, he said, as long as a fish species was sustaining itself, management scientists were relatively untroubled if its abundance fell to only 40 or 50 percent of what it might otherwise be. Yet to ecologists, he said, such a stock would be characterized as “depleted” — “a very pejorative word.”

In the end, the scientists concluded that 63 percent of saltwater fish stocks had been depleted “below what we think of as a target range,” Dr. Worm said.

But they also agreed that fish in well-managed areas, including the United States, were recovering or doing well. They wrote that management techniques like closing some areas to fishing, restricting the use of certain fishing gear or allocating shares of the catch to individualfishermen, communities or others could allow depleted fish stocks to rebound.

The researchers suggest that a calculation of how many fish in a given species can be caught in a given region without threatening the stock, called maximum sustainable yield, is less useful than a standard that takes into account the health of the wider marine environment. They also agreed that solutions did not lie only in management techniques but also in the political will to apply them, even if they initially caused economic disruption.

Because the new paper represents the views of both camps, its conclusions are likely to be influential, Dr. Murawski said. “Getting a strong statement from those communities that there is more to agree on than to disagree on builds confidence,” he said.

At a news conference on Wednesday, Dr. Worm said he hoped to be alive in 2048, when he would turn 79. If he is, he said, “I will be hosting a seafood party — at least I hope so.”

參考譯文：

漁業(yè)發(fā)展能否做到“魚與熊掌”兼得?海洋生態(tài)學(xué)家與漁業(yè)管理學(xué)家之間進(jìn)行的非同尋常的合作表明，二者或可兼得。

周五發(fā)行的新一期《科學(xué)》雜志刊登了一份研究報(bào)告，向來勢(shì)不兩立的這兩大派別 在報(bào)告中對(duì)咸水魚及其生存環(huán)境作了全球性評(píng)估。

他們得出的結(jié)論可謂喜憂參半，憂的是過度捕撈繼續(xù)威脅著許多魚類，喜的是通過 采取一系列措施可以扭轉(zhuǎn)局面。但是，鑒于海洋生態(tài)學(xué)家與漁業(yè)管理學(xué)家向來水火不容， 對(duì)這項(xiàng)研究比較了解的許多人士指出，這項(xiàng)研究的重要意義在于表明了兩大陣營(yíng)可以合 作共事。

這些人士稱，他們希望這項(xiàng)研究能夠激勵(lì)那些主張適度開發(fā)某些自然資源的科學(xué)家 與主張保護(hù)自然資源的科學(xué)家之間開展類似合作。

斯蒂夫?穆拉維斯基(Steve Murawski)是美國國家海洋和大氣管理局的首席漁業(yè)科 學(xué)家，他說，“我們需要整合這兩大陣營(yíng)，這項(xiàng)聯(lián)合研究是一個(gè)良好開端。”

這項(xiàng)聯(lián)合研究始于 2006 年，當(dāng)時(shí)來自達(dá)爾豪斯大學(xué)(位于加拿大新斯科舍省哈利法 克斯)的海洋生態(tài)學(xué)家鮑里斯·沃姆(Boris Worm)以及其他一些科學(xué)家警告稱，如果任 由過度捕撈而不加制止的話，到 2048 年，一些具有重要商業(yè)價(jià)值的咸水魚類將會(huì)消失殆 盡。許多生態(tài)學(xué)家對(duì)這一警告擊掌叫好，但是漁業(yè)管理學(xué)家們對(duì)這一預(yù)測(cè)不是表示懷疑，就是感到憤怒，稱這份報(bào)告是杞人憂天。

西雅圖華盛頓大學(xué)研究水產(chǎn)與漁業(yè)的知名教授雷·希爾本對(duì)這一報(bào)告就頗有微詞。不 過，他并沒有以科學(xué)家通常采用的方式來表達(dá)自己的不同意見。希爾本教授說，“通常情 況下，研究人員會(huì)不斷拿出關(guān)鍵論文來進(jìn)行爭(zhēng)辯。”這次的辯論一反常態(tài)，希爾本博士和 沃姆博士在美國國家公共電臺(tái)展開激辯。

沃姆博士稱，“我們?cè)谵q論時(shí)發(fā)現(xiàn)我們的共識(shí)之多超乎預(yù)料。”希爾本博士回想當(dāng)時(shí)的 情景時(shí)稱，他當(dāng)時(shí)也認(rèn)為沃姆博士“實(shí)際上看似一個(gè)通情達(dá)理的人。”

雙方?jīng)Q定就此問題共同展開研究。他們開始籌措資金，在加州圣塔芭芭拉市美國國 家生態(tài)分析與合成中心舉辦研討會(huì)。該國家中心由美國國家科學(xué)基金會(huì)贊助支持。

希爾本博士在接受采訪時(shí)稱，最初“漁業(yè)管理學(xué)家與海洋生態(tài)學(xué)家分開吃午飯”。不過， 沒過多久，兩個(gè)陣營(yíng)就開始收集、共享數(shù)據(jù)，并招募更多同事來分析數(shù)據(jù)。

希爾本博士稱，他和沃姆博士現(xiàn)在明白了為什么當(dāng)初海洋生態(tài)學(xué)家與漁業(yè)管理學(xué)家 觀點(diǎn)會(huì)如此迥異。希爾本博士說，只要某一魚類能夠正常延續(xù)下去，種群數(shù)量保持在自 然水平的 40%或 50%以上，漁業(yè)管理學(xué)家認(rèn)為這是可以接受的，但是對(duì)于海洋生態(tài)學(xué)家 而言，種群數(shù)量下降至這一水平將被定性為“枯竭”，這是一個(gè)“頗具貶義的字眼”。

科學(xué)家們得出的最終結(jié)論是，63%的咸水魚類資源已經(jīng)耗盡，所剩資源“低于我們的目標(biāo)范圍，”沃姆博士如是說。

但是，兩大陣營(yíng)也一致認(rèn)為，在美國等漁業(yè)管理比較完善的地區(qū)，魚類資源正逐步 恢復(fù)或保持穩(wěn)定?？茖W(xué)家們?cè)谘芯繄?bào)告中寫到，在一些地區(qū)實(shí)施休漁政策、限制使用某 些漁具、對(duì)個(gè)體漁民、社區(qū)等有關(guān)各方合理分配捕魚量等一些管理政策將有助于面臨枯 竭的魚類資源逐步得到恢復(fù)。

參與該項(xiàng)研究的科學(xué)家們稱，與最高可持續(xù)捕魚量相比，設(shè)定一個(gè)統(tǒng)籌整個(gè)海洋環(huán) 境健康發(fā)展的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)更有意義。所謂最高可持續(xù)捕魚量是指在不威脅某一魚類資源存續(xù)的 前提下在某一地區(qū)的最高捕魚限量。科學(xué)家們也一致認(rèn)為，解決之道不僅僅在于制定完 善的漁業(yè)管理方法，還在于有無將管理方法落到實(shí)處的政治意愿，盡管實(shí)施之初會(huì)給經(jīng) 濟(jì)發(fā)展帶來一定影響。

穆拉維斯基博士說，鑒于該報(bào)告代表了兩大陣營(yíng)的共同觀點(diǎn)，報(bào)告中得出的相關(guān)結(jié)論 將會(huì)產(chǎn)生巨大影響。他說，“兩大陣營(yíng)明確表示雙方共識(shí)大于分歧，這有助于提振信心。”

沃姆博士在周三舉行的新聞發(fā)布會(huì)上稱，他希望自己能活到 2048 年，到那時(shí)自己將 屆 79 歲高齡。他說，倘能如愿，“我將舉辦一個(gè)海鮮派對(duì)，至少這是一個(gè)愿望”。

英譯漢試題二

As I mentioned last week, I?ve recently returned from Australia. While I was there, I visited a eucalyptus forest that, in February, was the scene of an appalling wildfire. Perhaps naively, I had expected to find that many trees had been killed. They hadn?t. They had blackened bark, but were otherwise looking rather well, many of them wreathed in new young leaves. This prompted me to consider fire and the role it plays as a force of nature.

Fossil charcoals tell us that wildfires have been part of life on Earth for as long as there have been plants on land. That?s more than 400 million years of fire. Fire was here long before arriviste plants like grasses; it pre-dated the first flowers. And without wanting to get mystical about it, fire is, in many respects, a kind of animal, albeit an ethereal one. Like any animal, it consumes oxygen. Like a sheep or a slug, it eats plants. But unlike a normal animal, it?s a shape-shifter. Sometimes, it merely nibbles a few leaves; sometimes it kills grown trees. Sometimes it is more deadly and destructive than a swarm of locusts.

The shape-shifting nature of fire makes it hard to study, for it is not a single entity. Some fires are infernally hot; others, relatively cool. Some stay at ground level; others climb trees. Moreover, fire is much more likely to appear in some parts of the world than in others. Satellite images of the Earth show that wildfires are rare in, say, northern Europe, and common in parts of central Africa and Australia. (These days many wildfires are started by humans, either on purpose or by accident. But long before our ancestors began to throw torches or cigarette butts, fires were started by lightning strikes, or by sparks given off when rocks rub together in an avalanche.)

Once a fire gets started, many factors contribute to how it will behave. The weather obviously has a huge effect: winds can fan flames, rains can quench them. The lie of the land matters, too: fire runs uphill more readily than it goes down. But another crucial factor is what type of plants the fire has to eat.

It?s common knowledge that plants regularly exposed to fire tend to have features that help them cope with it — such as thick bark, or seeds that only grow after being exposed to intense heat or smoke. But what is less often remarked on is that the plants themselves affect the nature and severity of fire.

The shape-shifting nature of fire makes it hard to study, for it is not a single entity. Some fires are infernally hot; others, relatively cool. Some stay at ground level; others climb trees. Moreover, fire is much more likely to appear in some parts of the world than in others. Satellite images of the Earth show that wildfires are rare in, say, northern Europe, and common in parts of central Africa and Australia. (These days many wildfires are started by humans, either on purpose or by accident. But long before our ancestors began to throw torches or cigarette butts,fires were started by lightning strikes, or by sparks given off when rocks rub together in an avalanche.)

Once a fire gets started, many factors contribute to how it will behave. The weather obviously has a huge effect: winds can fan flames, rains can quench them. The lie of the land matters, too: fire runs uphill more readily than it goes down. But another crucial factor is what type of plants the fire has to eat.

It?s common knowledge that plants regularly exposed to fire tend to have features that help them cope with it — such as thick bark, or seeds that only grow after being exposed to intense heat or smoke.

參考譯文：

上周我曾談到，我前不久去過澳大利亞，訪澳期間我參觀了一個(gè)桉樹林。就在二月 份，這片桉樹林曾發(fā)生過森林大火，場(chǎng)面可怖。此次訪問期間，我還天真地以為會(huì)看到 許多被大火燒毀的桉樹，事實(shí)超乎我的預(yù)料，這些桉樹除了樹皮被烤黑之外，其他一切 安好，有些桉樹還長(zhǎng)出了嫩葉。我不由開始對(duì)野火以及野火作為自然力的作用進(jìn)行研究 探索。

木炭形成的歷史表明，自從地球上有植物以來，野火就一直是地球生命的組成部分，也就是說野火存在的歷史超過 4 億年。早在雜草等恣意生長(zhǎng)的植物出現(xiàn)之前野火就已經(jīng) 存在了;野火的歷史早于開花植物的歷史。野火雖然虛無縹緲，但從很多方面來講，野 火就是一種動(dòng)物，這并非故弄玄虛。野火像任何動(dòng)物一樣需要氧氣，會(huì)像羊或鼻涕蟲一 樣以植物為食，不過，野火與一般的動(dòng)物不同之處在于，野火形體變化莫測(cè)，有時(shí)野火 只蠶食幾片葉子，有時(shí)則會(huì)吞噬成年樹木，甚至變得比蝗災(zāi)更具致命性和破壞性。

野火形體不定，也并非單一實(shí)體存在，研究起來頗有難度。野火可以炙熱無比也可 以相對(duì)清涼，可以貼地匍匐也可以沿樹攀爬，而且，野火在不同地區(qū)的發(fā)生頻率也各不 相同。地球觀測(cè)衛(wèi)星獲取的圖像顯示，北歐地區(qū)野火較為罕見，中非和澳大利亞野火則 司空見慣。如今，許多野火皆因人為因素而起，有些是有意為之，有些則是意外之舉。

人類曾扔擲火把“刀耕火種”或亂丟煙頭引發(fā)野火，不過早在人為制造野火之前，野火要么 由閃電引發(fā)，要么由雪崩時(shí)巖石摩擦產(chǎn)生的火花引發(fā)。

一旦引發(fā)野火，火勢(shì)如何會(huì)受到許多因素的影響。天氣狀況顯然是一大因素：風(fēng)助 火勢(shì)，雨則相反。地勢(shì)也是一大因素：火勢(shì)沿山坡的蔓延速度由低到高比由高到低要快。 當(dāng)然，火勢(shì)還取決于另一個(gè)關(guān)鍵因素，即，過火植物的種類。

有關(guān)野火的一個(gè)常識(shí)就是，野火頻發(fā)地區(qū)的植物往往都自有應(yīng)對(duì)之策，如：樹皮較厚，或者種子只有在遇到高熱或煙熏時(shí)才會(huì)發(fā)芽。不過人們較少提及的一點(diǎn)是，這些植物本身也會(huì)對(duì)野火的性質(zhì)和火勢(shì)大小產(chǎn)生影響。

漢譯英試題一(缺)

漢譯英試題二(此處為真題出處全文)

我國控?zé)熀徒麩熜蝿?shì)依然嚴(yán)峻

盡管我們?cè)诳責(zé)熀徒麩煼矫孀隽舜罅抗ぷ?，取得了一定成效，但控?zé)熀徒麩熜蝿?shì)依 然嚴(yán)峻。

一、普遍對(duì)煙草煙霧危害性認(rèn)識(shí)存在四大誤區(qū)。禁煙難、難禁煙，主要是對(duì)煙草煙 霧的危害不認(rèn)識(shí)或認(rèn)識(shí)不足，甚至把吸煙說成好處多、貢獻(xiàn)大、危害小、不傷害他人。

這些錯(cuò)誤的認(rèn)識(shí)包括:

吸煙“好處多”。很多煙民認(rèn)為，吸煙可以消除疲勞、解除煩悶、振奮精神、刺激情緒; 吸煙可以防止蟲叮蚊咬，以毒攻毒消除某些病害;吸煙可以社交聯(lián)誼、廣交朋友、瀟灑 浪漫;吸煙可以幫助大腦啟發(fā)思考、寫作帶來靈氣等。

吸煙“貢獻(xiàn)大”。吸煙是為國家做貢獻(xiàn)、創(chuàng)造財(cái)富、增加稅收、脫貧致富、解決就業(yè)。

沒有煙民，國家哪能每年收入幾千個(gè)億元稅收，解決上千萬人的就業(yè)，國家應(yīng)感謝煙民， 從而為吸煙找到所謂正當(dāng)理由。

吸煙“無大害”。許多煙民和社會(huì)公眾認(rèn)為吸煙有點(diǎn)害但無大害。主要是尼古丁的毒害， 這種毒害也是輕微的、漫長(zhǎng)的、潛移默化的，只要自己身體好無大害，你看某位親人一 輩子吸煙活到九十九，不影響健康長(zhǎng)壽。

其實(shí)，一些煙民只知道吸煙對(duì)人體的呼吸系統(tǒng)有影響，不知道煙霧中含有 4000 多種 化學(xué)物質(zhì);只知道吸煙可能致癌，不知道煙霧中至少有 40 多種致癌物質(zhì);只知道吸煙有 害，不知道煙霧還有毒，煙霧中含有許多有毒有害致病物質(zhì)，如煙堿、二氧化氮、氫氰 酸、丙烯醛、砷、鉛、汞等。煙霧對(duì)人群的危害超過工業(yè)污染的化學(xué)氣體，對(duì)人體的大 腦、心肺、肝、脾、胃、腎，對(duì)人體的性功能、生殖功能都有不同程度的傷害，甚至將 嚴(yán)重影響生育繁衍質(zhì)量。

吸煙“不傷害他人”。這是在公共場(chǎng)所和工作場(chǎng)所禁煙難的一個(gè)重要原因。

煙民錯(cuò)誤地認(rèn)為，吸煙是自己的權(quán)利，自己的自由，不受他人干涉。對(duì)于煙霧污染 環(huán)境、污染空氣質(zhì)量，對(duì)二手煙、三手煙、主動(dòng)吸煙、被動(dòng)吸煙造成對(duì)他人健康侵害和 享有清新空氣的環(huán)境權(quán)的侵害不認(rèn)知、不支持，我行我素。有的認(rèn)為有點(diǎn)影響問題也不 大，缺乏共同營(yíng)造文明環(huán)境的思想和道德素質(zhì)。

二、控?zé)?、禁煙法律法?guī)不健全不完善。近年來，一些地方政府和行政管理部門曾對(duì)吸煙的范圍從維護(hù)公眾健康的角度做出了一些行政規(guī)定，但對(duì)控?zé)熍c健康做出發(fā)展規(guī) 劃，以及對(duì)設(shè)臵吸煙區(qū)(室)、禁止吸煙標(biāo)志、限制做煙制品廣告宣傳等做出相應(yīng)規(guī)定，執(zhí) 行和落實(shí)的都不夠理想。

在奧運(yùn)會(huì)期間，應(yīng)該說執(zhí)行得很好，基本上實(shí)行無煙奧運(yùn)，受到各國運(yùn)動(dòng)員的好評(píng)。 但是在奧運(yùn)會(huì)、殘奧會(huì)結(jié)束后，這些規(guī)定的執(zhí)行沒有很好延續(xù)下來，鞏固發(fā)揚(yáng)成效，反 而出現(xiàn)反彈。

在控?zé)?、禁煙的?zhí)法過程中經(jīng)常遇到 4 個(gè)突出問題:一是行政執(zhí)法主體不明確，執(zhí)行 范圍界定不嚴(yán)格，執(zhí)法部門的力量、經(jīng)費(fèi)等不能適應(yīng)執(zhí)法要求;二是執(zhí)法的懲罰規(guī)定不 明確，對(duì)違法違規(guī)者不能執(zhí)行懲罰影響執(zhí)法力度和法規(guī)的權(quán)威性;三是社會(huì)監(jiān)督?jīng)]有形 成氛圍;四是執(zhí)法效果不明顯。

公眾參與控?zé)熁顒?dòng)不廣泛不深入，尚未引起社會(huì)的高度關(guān)注?？?zé)熀驮诠矆?chǎng)所禁煙， 不只是對(duì)煙民而言，要煙民戒煙需要社會(huì)、煙制品行業(yè)、每個(gè)社會(huì)公民的共同努力才能 實(shí)現(xiàn)，更多的是關(guān)愛、理解、支持和幫助，和諧共建無煙公共場(chǎng)所。

中國的控?zé)熃麩煿ぷ鏖_展的比較晚，但通過立法來實(shí)施公共場(chǎng)所無煙化已是大勢(shì)所 趨，并得到社會(huì)和公眾的共識(shí)。目前，一些少數(shù)省市從行政法規(guī)的角度提出控?zé)熀徒麩?的規(guī)定。但國家尚無一部在一定范圍內(nèi)實(shí)行控?zé)?、禁煙的法律。?jù)了解，國家已在做這 方面的準(zhǔn)備工作，我們相信到 2011 年國家承諾到期時(shí)間會(huì)有相應(yīng)的法律出臺(tái)，推動(dòng)中國禁煙工作深入開展。

參考譯文：

Tobacco Control Remains a Daunting/Grim/Grave/Formidable/Huge Challenge

For all the commendable efforts and visible differences made so far, China still has an uphill battle to fight before the tobacco epidemic is controlled and eventually banned within its territory.

1. Misconceptions of how tobacco smoke endangers/harms public health. Tobacco control seems a mission impossible in least because the general public has little, if any, knowledge about how hazardous tobacco smoke can be. In some cases, tobacco use is even misinterpreted as being physically empowering and economically beneficial with negligent threat to those exposed to second-hand smoke.

Among other misunderstandings, tobacco use is believed to be “rewarding in many ways”. For many tobacco users, cigarettes are a real remedy for /the best bet to fight fatigue and frustration and a truly stimulating booster/refreshing stimulator. As they understand it, tobacco can be used to dispel annoying mosquitoes and other bugs, and it can even serve as a painkiller for some ailments. Tobacco use is widely seen as sexy, stylish and sociable.

On top of that, some even argue that tobacco use can boost brain power and inspire writing.

Tobacco use “makes strong economic sense”. Those tobacco defenders make a strong case for tobacco use, arguing that tobacco production, manufacturing and consumption create wealth and add tax revenue to the state coffer, create jobs and help lift many out of poverty. Tobacco ban means, according to them, a multi-billion-yuan loss in tax revenue each year and tens of millions of job losses at the same time. In this sense, it is the hardcore tobacco users that the country owes a lot to, they say.

Tobacco use “causes little harm, if at all”, a view echoed by many users and the wider general public. They believe that tobacco use is harmful mainly due to the presence of nicotine, which is at most negligently toxic and takes an incremental health toll only. To substantiate their argument that tobacco use is compatible with longevity if one is born to be healthy, some even cite their family members or relatives who happened to be lifelong tobacco addicts but still made it to very senior age.

As a matter of fact, some tobacco users are informed only about how tobacco use can affect people?s respiratory system, but not about the fact that over 4000 kinds of chemicals can be found in tobacco smoke. They are warned of the epidemic being carcinogenic/cancer-causing, but not of the fact that at least 40 kinds of cancer-causing substances are lurking in the smoke. They know tobacco use is harmful, but they don?t know that tobacco smoke is highly toxic with many pathogenic substances in it, including nicotine, nitrogen dioxide, hydrocyanic acid, acraldehyde, arsenic, lead and mercury. Tobacco smoke proves more dangerous than industrial air pollution, taking a varied toll on people?s brain, heart, hung, liver, spleen, stomach and kidney, triggering sexual and procreative dysfunctions, and even leading to birth defects.

Tobacco use “does no harm to others”, a misconception that helps explain why smoke ban can hardly be imposed in public space and at work places. Tobacco users wrongly believe that they have the right to use tobacco, a freedom that defies intervention. They simply go their own way without knowledge or awareness of how their selfish enjoyment pollutes the air, how cigarette use endangers the health of those who are passively exposed to tobacco smoke, and how they have infringed upon others? right to enjoy fresh air. Some of them argue that tobacco use is harmful, but in a rather limited way. Their one-sided perception highlights how they lack the drive to hold themselves to high ethical and moral standards needed to build a healthy environment for all.

2. Laws and regulations on tobacco control remain to be improved/China has yet to provide a strong and well-developed legal framework for tobacco control. Local authorities and regulators have, in recent years, outlined/rolled out administrative regulations on tobacco use limitations for the sake of public health. Pro-health programs have been developed to limit tobacco use, and directives (have been) engineered/framed/established to mark out/delimit smoking sections, post no-smoking signs, and restrict advertising and promotion. That said, much remains to be done when it comes to implementation on the ground.

Beijing won wide acclaim from the international athletic community during the proceedings of the Olympic Games in 2008 thanks to rigorous implementation of tobacco control measures that resulted in a “no-tobacco” Olympics. Yet, the best practice failed to persist following the Olympics and Paralympics, and tobacco use staged a come-back/rebounded.

Four challenges/deficiencies stand out when it comes to law-enforcement on tobacco control. First, there is no clear division as to who is accountable for law-enforcement, no rigorous definition of jurisdiction, and inadequacy of task forces and funds for law-enforcement.Second, there is no clearly defined regulation on punishment. Resulting impunity undermines the authoritativeness of law-enforcement forces and regulations. Third, there is not yet an enabling/empowering culture of public supervision. Fourth, there are no visible differences/results from law-enforcement operations to date.

The lack of public involvement in tobacco control fails to feature prominently on the priority list. Tobacco control and a total ban in public space call for greater care, understanding, support and commitment of not only tobacco users, but the wider civil society and manufacturers. Each and every citizen needs to contribute to a tobacco-free, harmonious environment for all.

As a late-starter in tobacco control endeavors, China is already seeing a defining trend of and growing consensus on building smoking-free public space by virtue of legislation.

At this point, a few provincial and municipal governments have developed administrative regulations on tobacco control, but there is no law of this nature at the state level. Thankfully, the central government is already working on this, and we may as well expect one by 2011, the promised deadline. By then, we will have a law to go by in the fight against the epidemic/public health threat down the road.