原田英語の英検二次面接 ぜんぶ攻略くん
AI採点

英検1級 二次 予想トピック 73 ・ 🌱 環境・エネルギー ・ Can ~?

Can large marine protected areas restore the health of the world's oceans?

大規模な海洋保護区は、世界の海の健全さを取り戻すことができるか。

このトピックを選ぶべき人

海の生き物や漁業のニュースに関心があり、魚が減っている身近な例を出せる人向け。

骨組み理由3つ（どちらの立場でも話せる）

賛成（Yes）で話すなら

I believe large marine protected areas can play a major role in restoring the health of the oceans.

  1. fish recoveryWhen fishing is banned in an area, fish populations often recover and grow larger inside it. Studies of no-take zones have found that fish can even spill over into nearby waters, which helps local fishers too.
  2. biodiversityProtected areas give coral reefs, seagrass beds, and other habitats time to recover. These habitats are home to many species, so protecting them helps whole ecosystems, not just a few kinds of fish.
  3. climate resilienceHealthy ecosystems are better able to survive warming seas. For example, a reef that is not damaged by overfishing and pollution has a better chance of recovering after coral bleaching.

反対（No）で話すなら

I don't think marine protected areas alone can restore the oceans, because the biggest threats do not stop at their borders.

  1. climate changeRising sea temperatures and ocean acidification affect protected and unprotected waters alike. A line on a map cannot stop coral bleaching caused by warming seas.
  2. paper parksMany protected areas exist only on paper. Patrolling huge areas of ocean is expensive, so illegal fishing often continues, especially in countries with limited resources.
  3. pollution from landMuch ocean pollution, such as plastic waste and farm chemicals, comes from land. Unless we deal with these sources, even well-protected areas will continue to suffer.

模範スピーチ賛成の立場で2分（258語）

序論Thank you. I'd like to talk about whether large marine protected areas can restore the health of the world's oceans. I believe they can, for three reasons: fish populations recover, whole ecosystems are protected, and the oceans become better able to cope with climate change. 理由1First, when fishing is banned in an area, fish have a chance to grow and reproduce. Studies of no-take zones have found that fish inside them become larger and more numerous. What's more, fish often spill over into nearby waters, so local fishers can also benefit in the long run. 理由2Second, protected areas save not only fish but also their homes. Coral reefs and seagrass beds support countless species, but they are easily damaged by fishing nets and boat anchors. When these activities are kept away, damaged habitats have time to grow back, and the whole food chain becomes healthier. 理由3Finally, healthy oceans are stronger oceans. Warming seas are causing serious coral bleaching around the world. A reef that is not also under pressure from overfishing and pollution has a much better chance of recovering. In this sense, protection buys us time while we reduce carbon emissions. 譲歩Admittedly, some protected areas exist only on paper, because patrolling huge areas of ocean is difficult. However, new technology, such as tracking fishing boats by satellite, is making it much easier to find illegal fishing. まとめIn conclusion, because protected areas help fish recover, protect entire ecosystems, and make the oceans more resilient, I believe they can play a key role in restoring ocean health. Thank you.

和訳

ありがとうございます。大規模な海洋保護区は世界の海の健全さを取り戻せるかについてお話しします。私はできると考えます。理由は3つ、魚の数が回復すること、生態系全体が守られること、そして海が気候変動に耐えやすくなることです。 まず、ある海域で漁が禁止されると、魚は成長し、繁殖する機会を得ます。禁漁区の研究では、区域内の魚が大きくなり、数も増えることが分かっています。さらに、魚が周辺の海へあふれ出ることも多いので、長い目で見れば地元の漁業者も恩恵を受けられます。 次に、保護区は魚だけでなく、そのすみかも守ります。サンゴ礁や海草の藻場は数えきれない生き物を支えていますが、漁網や船のいかりで簡単に傷ついてしまいます。こうした活動を遠ざければ、傷ついたすみかが回復する時間ができ、食物連鎖全体が健全になります。 最後に、健全な海は強い海です。海水温の上昇で、世界中で深刻なサンゴの白化が起きています。乱獲や汚染の圧力を同時に受けていないサンゴ礁の方が、ずっと回復しやすいのです。その意味で、保護は私たちが炭素の排出を減らすまでの時間をかせいでくれます。 確かに、広大な海を見回るのは難しいため、名ばかりの保護区もあります。しかし、衛星で漁船を追跡するといった新しい技術によって、違法な漁はずっと見つけやすくなっています。 結論として、保護区は魚の回復を助け、生態系全体を守り、海を回復力のあるものにするので、海の健全さを取り戻すうえで重要な役割を果たせると考えます。ありがとうございました。

想定質疑面接委員はこう突っ込んでくる

QWon't fishing communities lose their jobs if large areas are closed?

That's a fair concern. In the short term, some fishers may have to change where they fish, so governments should support them during the transition. However, in the long run, healthy fish stocks benefit fishers far more than empty seas do. Some fishers can also find new work in ecotourism or ocean monitoring.

Q：広い海域を閉鎖したら、漁業の地域の人たちは仕事を失うのでは？
A：もっともな懸念です。短期的には、漁場を変えなければならない漁業者もいるので、移行期間は政府が支援すべきです。しかし長い目で見れば、魚がいなくなった海より、魚の資源が豊かな海の方が漁業者にとってずっと得になります。エコツーリズムや海の監視といった新しい仕事に就ける漁業者もいるでしょう。

QHow much of the ocean do you think should be protected?

Many countries have agreed on a goal of protecting 30 percent of the world's land and sea by 2030. I think that is a reasonable target. What matters most, though, is not the percentage itself but whether the protected areas are actually managed well.

Q：海のどのくらいを保護すべきだと思いますか。
A：多くの国が、2030年までに世界の陸と海の30％を保護するという目標に合意しています。妥当な目標だと思います。ただ、いちばん大切なのは割合そのものではなく、保護区が実際にきちんと管理されているかどうかです。

QWho should protect the high seas, which belong to no country?

That's a difficult question. I think international cooperation is the only answer. A UN agreement on the high seas now makes it possible to create protected areas outside national waters. Countries need to support it with money and patrols to make it work.

Q：どの国にも属さない公海は、誰が守るべきですか。
A：難しい質問です。国際協力しか答えはないと思います。公海に関する国連の協定によって、今では各国の水域の外にも保護区を作れるようになりました。それを機能させるには、各国が資金や監視で支える必要があります。

語彙このトピックで使える表現