2008年12月25日
大変申し訳ありませんが、このページは英語のみです。
The judges of the 5th annual JAT translation contest for new and aspiring translators have made their final decision, and the results are as follows:
The semi-finalists, in order of the numbers assigned to their entries, were:
4. Alexander Farrell
17. Miyako Dubois
25. Grayson Shepard
30. Mark Kelly
79. Darryl Wee
83. Jonathan Merz
After much deliberation, the judges awarded prizes as follows:
First place: No. 83, Jonathan Merz (Wakayama, Japan)
Second place: No. 25, Grayson Shepard (Kanagawa, Japan)
Many thanks to everyone who applied. Choosing the winners was a difficult task, given the number of entries and their level. I observed the judges' deliberations via e-mail, and they they took their responsibilities very seriously. Even if you didn't win, I hope you found the contest to be a challenging and worthwhile exercise, and I hope that some of you will try again next year.
Mike Sekine
Contest Liaison
Commentaries from the Judges
Malcolm James
The stated purpose of the contest is "to cultivate new talent in commercial non-literary translation." In judging, I was trying to find the person with the most talent to become a top commercial translator, not the person who produced the best translation at this stage. Simple misinterpretations are likely to disappear with experience, so I regard them as less of a problem than if this were an actual commercial translation. I’m much less willing, however, to be lenient on translators who submit a translation that doesn’t seem to have got a final read-through, or who produce a translation that doesn’t seem to have considered the document’s context and purpose. Each of the entries commented on below has its own merits and displays the signs of a competent translator. All the finalists have the potential to be good commercial translators and are to be congratulated on their efforts.
General points
The passage for translation is part of a website report on a survey conducted by the local branch of a government agency. The Japanese is generally easy to read, well-structured, and quite accessible. The translation should be, too. Unlike previous contests, but like many commercial translation projects, the genko had some errors and inconsistencies. It also assumed a familiarity with local conditions and subject matter, which had to be interpreted for the target audience - readers of an international organization's Internet presentation on efforts to reduce marine pollution.
Most of the entrants handled the task well, including the problems in the genko. The only real issue was with Q6 ("港内の清掃は定期的に行っておりますか"), where the follow-up question was the only one in the questionnaire that wanted details for NO answers ("ロ 行っていない") instead of YES answers ("イ 行っている"). The problem was that one of the NO answers "②定期的に行なっている" contradicted the NO. Some entrants concluded that the NO (ロ) was a typo for YES (イ), but answer ② didn't really work for that either. I don't know for certain what was actually intended, but since only two Co-ops answered with NO, I wondered if a superfluous line break had turned two answers into three. Conflating answers ② and ③ to give "定期的に行なっている組合員、又は委託業者に委託して行なっている" might work - the Co-op doesn't do regular cleaning itself, it gets either members or professionals to do it instead.
Specific points for #04
This translation gave a good overall impression, but there were places where a better grasp of who was doing what would have helped. For instance Q3 asked "Does your association encourage the proper disposal of ..." but the response had the same subject for "encourage" and "dispose." Similarly, there were contradictions between different parts of the genko. Q9 has "let them float" and "let them sink" applying to the same object ("residue"? "nets"?), and the questionnaire is titled "Questionnaire on the .. Plan," but doesn't really seem to be asking about the "Plan." This translator writes well, and has potential to be a good translator. Further improvement would come from making a habit of reading through the genko several times and actively thinking about what it all means before starting to translate.
Specific points for #17
This translation was let down by grammatical errors and misuse of English, such as the "regulate" in "regulate industrial waste disposal methods," which produces a translation meaning "impose controls on disposal methods" instead of "put in place a system for proper disposal/collection" for "受入態勢を整える." There were places where a better grasp of who was doing what would have helped. For instance, in the second paragraph "they (did a survey)" is confusing. "We (did a survey)" would have made the relationships clearer. Likewise, using "fishermen" for both "漁協組合員" and "釣人" makes it difficult to tell who's being complained about in Q11. The translator seems to have a good grasp of the genko text, so in addition to doing lots of target-language reading to improve grammar etc., improvement would come from making a point of taking a closer look at the larger context - in this case, the rest of the website and similar websites - to gain a deeper overall understanding of the topic.
Specific points for #25
This was perhaps the most accurate translation, and certainly had very few actual mistranslations. I particularly liked the phrasing of Q4 ("Does the co-op instruct fishing crews to bring their on-board garbage back with them?). However the translation trailed the winner on readability and overall impression. The translator has a good understanding of the genko, so improvement would probably come from reading lots of well-written English on the same subject and in the same sort of style as the project. That would help in spotting places where it's OK to move away from the literal text of the Japanese. For instance, think about whether "In order to improve anti-littering initiatives in the future" actually needs the "in the future" at the end.
Specific points for #30
I liked the way that this translator handled the percentages, and particularly the format distinction for Q2, which was the percentage of members, not the percentage of respondents like the other questions. Like the overall winner, this translator made a clear distinction between the current survey and the previous one in the second paragraph, but spoiled it with "the first past" instead of "the first part." A more careful read-through would eliminate that sort of typo. Otherwise, the overall impression is good. Improvement would come from practicing editing the finished translation to make it sharper. This has a word count that is 13% higher than the translations produced by the winner and runner-up, so it might be an idea to go back and try to reduce the count by 10%-15%.
Specific points for #79
There were several points where I particularly liked this translator's choice of words. Examples include the question in Q3, and in Q11, "etiquette" for "マナー," and "has become general practice" for "現状である." However, there were also discrepancies such as "in-harbor maintenance while the ship is on the berth" (either "in-harbor" or "... berth," not both) and the disconnect between the uses of "How?" between question and response in Q.5 (How do you supervise ...?/How is garbage etc. disposed of?). These would probably have been caught by a more careful read-through. Improvement would probably come from leaving the translation for a while before coming back to do the read-through with a fresh mind.
Specific points for #83
I liked this translation because the translator had obviously thought carefully about the topic and worked out how to say the same thing in natural English. The introductory paragraphs are particularly good at making a clear distinction between the current survey and the previous one, and I liked the “investigation to find out how people ... perceived the marine litter situation in their area. Compare that with the same part by some of the other finalists: "survey ... to examine the awareness of marine pollution," "survey to see what [people] think about garbage in the ocean." I liked the simplicity of "seaweed nets" (Q9) and phrasing such as "sorting garbage" (Q4) and "does your cooperative have a policy in place for..." (Q3). Improvement would probably come from making a point of re-reading the genko and then doing a read-through of the translation with a fresh mind to catch oddities such as "survey of ... gear shops was also conducted" ("also"?) and "driving into the harbor" (splash?).
Ken Wagner
Several different field-specific conceptual and terminology challenges were hidden in the seemingly innocuous survey questionnaire on marine litter used as this year's Japanese-to-English contest passage. Lodged in deceptively short sentences and often shorter responses were words and ideas from the fields of commercial fishing, aquaculture, Japanese commercial fishing organization management, and marine environmental protection. A considerable amount of leg work would have been required to research each of these areas and render a translation that was appropriate in tone and register as well as technical parlance.
This year's contest finalists deserve praise for extracting the meaning from the questionnaire and its responses and continuing to lead the reader in the right general direction in a manner that was generally pleasant to read. They maneuvered around a couple of confusing typos left in the text, and went through several levels of depth in research to find correct official names and terminology. Admirably, no one took the bait of transferring the down arrow (↓) into English to mean "see below."
In the world of commercial translation, it is still possible to get largely incorrect or incomprehensible translations, so the candidates, none with more than three years experience, are on the right track in their development as translators.
This year's winner, Entry No. 83, produced far-and-away the most accurate and succinctly expressed translation. The evaluation system that I use assigns negative points for errors (e.g., misunderstanding, syntax, technical terminology, register), positive points for displaying subject familiarity or good writing, and has an "artistic impression" score (the general visceral reaction I get from reading the translation after not having seen the Japanese text for a while). Entry No. 83 only had one-half to two-thirds the error points and had two to three times the positive points of the second and place finishers. The translation featured a clean title (Anti-Littering Measures), clear introduction, and smoothly worded questions and responses. Entry No. 83 called bilge water "bilge water" which sounds so much better to my Pacific coast ear than just "bilge," the term used by four of the other six finalists.
The second place winner, Entry No. 25, actually prompted the best visceral reaction when I read the translation after not having seen the Japanese text for a while, and there were considerable fewer error points than the other four finalists.
The third place winner, Entry No. 30, produced the second best visceral reaction when I read it independent of the text, but on closer examination had quite a few errors and clearly fewer positive points for subject familiarity or outstanding writing.
Since Entry No. 83, Entry No. 30, and Entry No. 25 will be immortalized on the translation contest web page, I would like to mention here, before it's too late, that I rated Entry No. 4 slightly above Entry No. 25 and Entry No. 4 was my choice for third place. I found significantly (in a non-statistical sense) fewer errors in Entry No. 4 than Entry No. 25, but the judges eventually agreed that Entry No. 25 edged out Entry No. 4 overall.
A few specific items I might note are:
Certain parts of the English version of the questionnaire could have been more in the register of the fields of fisheries bureaucracy and industry and marine environmental protection bureaucracy. The questionnaire was, after all, issued by a marine activities-regulating bureaucracy to organizations in the fisheries industry. An example of such jargon can be found in
Chapter 18 of the Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy - Governors' Draft. Reading a few pages of that will get you in a marine bureaucratic mood in short order. It was on the first page of hits returned by searching
+"marine litter" +"commercial fishing" on Google. (Other judges may feel that a general tone is fine for this piece.)
The name of the organization that issued the questionnaire (第十一管区海上保安本部) posed a terminology challenge. Although the Eijiro online dictionary glosses this without the number as "Regional Marine Safety Headquarters," the organization's own website, which can be found by simply pasting the character string into Google, identifies the organization as the 11th Regional Coast Guard Headquarters. The site provides a link to the main Japan Coast Guard page that contains enough English-language information to confirm the current English name is Japan Coast Guard. There is, however, conflicting information on the web as to the name this organization, and Japanese organizations frequently change their English names over time for various reasons, so this simple name presents a bit of a research problem. Two of the six finalists chose the wrong name for this organization. Ironically, the 11th Regional HQ website is the site where the contest passage could be downloaded.
Another terminology challenge, and somewhat of a technical challenge, was what to call the fisheries cooperative associations (漁業協同組合) in the face of some seemingly contradictory evidence on the web.
The Japanese Wikipedia entry for 漁業協同組合 provides a link to a list of all 34 local cooperatives on and around the main island of Okinawa and suggests that the standard English is fisheries cooperative. The webpage of the national federation of local fisheries cooperative associations (JF Zengyoren) mentions both "fisheries cooperatives" and "fisheries cooperative associations" at the local level. However, there is quite a bit of English-language evidence in the form of academic and bureaucratic literature to suggest that "fisheries cooperative association" is the accepted term, including the fact that the abbreviation FCA is accepted. Of the six finalists, two actually used fisheries cooperative association, one used fisheries cooperative, and the other terms used varied from fishermen cooperative societies and fishery cooperative to fishing industry association.
Another interesting challenge was the question (No. 9) on how people disposed of the residue from cleaning the mozuku nets. The translations of Response No. 2 to this question differed greatly. This response was "2) Haul in the nets, clean them in the drying area, and then flush [hose] the residue back into the water. (回収して網干場で洗浄し海に流している.) The "flush or hose into the water" proved especially troublesome for the finalists, with the top three finalists rendering it as "allowed to flow out to sea," "rinse it in the sea," and "dispose of the residue in the ocean." This conjures up very different mental pictures of the process. I would picture large concrete-paved work areas to lay out gear on, and high-pressure industrial hoses for knocking the residue off and flushing it out to sea. In fact, there is a nice video of a person hosing off a mozuku net on youtube (
watch this or search モズク網洗浄 on youtube). The water is flowing off the edge of the dock, and a couple of swipes with the stream of the hose would get it all back in the ocean.
Regarding the word mozuku itself, most of the six finals either mentioned it was an edible seaweed or provided some type of note describing it and identifying it by scientific name. The contest winner chose to drop the term mozuku entirely, which may have been a judicious editing move, considering the translation instructions given with the passage.
The purpose JAT Translation Contest is to encourage new and aspiring translators with no more than three years of experience. The six finalists produced translations that were clearly superior to those of the other contestants and demonstrated potential for growth in the craft.
I congratulate them for their accomplishment and hope that they will continue to stay active in the field.
Lee Seaman
First, my compliments to the finalists. The overall quality of translation was excellent, and I predict promising careers as professional translators for all of you.
I also complement the organizers of the contest, and particularly the people who selected the test translation. This is a challenging piece, with considerable room for the translator to demonstrate his or her ability to provide a clean, clear, and accurate translation.
Each finalist made at least a few errors. My picks for first and second place were those passages that I felt most clearly communicated the meaning of the Japanese with the fewest errors and areas of potential misunderstanding.
Working premises
I have been a professional translator for over 25 years, and it is not uncommon for clients to have me evaluate a newer translator's work. So I approached these translations from that perspective.
I made two hypothetical assumptions: (1) that this is a commercial translation, performed for a paying client, and (2) that the client wants to know the content of the questionnaire from a technical/scientific perspective (rather than, for example, a scholarly linguistic analysis of the language used in Japanese questionnaires).
Given this perspective, clearly some errors are more important than others. Errors that cause a misunderstanding of content, or that cause the reader to question the validity of the document, are more serious than errors that are simply awkward.
General comments
I would like to focus on three points in the Japanese document that I thought were particularly challenging.
1) ゴミのポイ捨て
Four finalists translated this as "littering", one as "throwing trash into the ocean", and one as "garbage dumping". I found over 500 entries online for "marine littering", which I would recommend in this context.
2) 港内
This was translated as "port" in some cases and "harbor" in other cases. Confusion ensued when translators did not distinguish between "in the port" (meaning within the physical area of the port, including roads, buildings, and trash receptacles), and "in the harbor" (meaning in the water).
Thus, in Question 11-3, "港内に家庭のゴミを捨てているのが現状である" was in some cases translated to imply that families were bringing their garbage to the port facility and dumping it in trash bins there, rather than dumping their garbage directly into the water. My reading of the Japanese is that some people are dumping garbage directly into the water, but there may be is a mixture of behaviors (dumping in the water and dumping in the port facility trash receptacles). For a commercial client I would add a translator's note asking for clarification, or use a workaround that does not specify where the garbage is dumped.
3) 港内での釣人のモラルが低い、釣人のマナーが悪いので困っている
This is an excellent example of Japanese words that "look like" they should be English but are actually not. A direct translation of "poor morals" suggests that fishermen are having or promoting illicit sexual encounters at the port or onboard their boats, and "bad manners" suggests rude speech and actions. Refusing to take care of their own garbage and trash would be better described as "irresponsible", "thoughtless", and/or "inconsiderate".
Individual comments
1) No. 83
An elegant and easy-to-read translation. I particularly appreciated the phrasing of the questionnaire elements (for example, "If 'Yes', describe:" is a very readable translation of "イと答えた方はその内容"), and the use of "you". The extra care given to layout contributed to readability.
See comments above regarding "littering" and "manners". Also, "inconsiderateness" would be better rendered as "lack of consideration".
2) No. 25
A very good translation clear and accurate. I particularly appreciated the phrasing "In the second round" for "この調査の第２弾として", and your clear translation of the responses to Question 4.
See comments above for "littering" and "morals and manners". In Question 9-3, your translation of "Clean the net and then let it sink naturally" implies that the net is sinking, rather than the residue cleaned from the net; "let the residue sink naturally" would be clearer. I also wonder if you considered that "ロと答えた方はその内容" in Question 6 might be a misprint for "イと答えた方はその内容", which seems to make more sense in the context. In a commercial translation, I would probably add a translator's note here.
Other translations:
No. 04: A good translation, but less clear and somewhat more confusing than the two winners. For example, you reformatted the responses, changing them from bulleted lists to "Those who answered 'Yes' … " My personal experience is that bulleted lists are generally easier to read and process, particularly at speed. In Response 9-a you wrote "Leave them to sink … ", which at first made me think you meant the nets. "Leave it to sink … " is correct if you are referring to the residue. Also, in the second paragraph of the introduction you translated "この調査の第２弾として" as ""The survey was conducted a second time," but actually this is the second round of a single survey, which is important if the client also had the first round translated or might want to consider having it translated. Good catch on the possible typo; I agree.
No. 17: A good translation, and laid out very nicely, but with enough grammar and vocabulary errors that the questionnaire is difficult to read. For example, "dispose the garbage" should be "dispose of garbage", ""extremely worsening" should be "Growing much worse", and "remaining dirt on the fishing nets" should be "residue on the fishing nets" ("dirt" means "earth", and would only be on fishing nets if they were dragged along the ground). I liked your last sentence, "Increasing numbers of people drive to ports to throw away their garbage"; this is a nice workaround of the problem I described above, because it doesn't specify whether the garbage is thrown in the water or dumped on the ground or in garbage receptacles at the port, while still making it clear that there is a problem.
No. 30: A good translation, clear and easy to read, with attractive layout, but some awkward expressions kept me from putting it in my top two. Just for example, "incorrectly throwing away trash" might be better phrased as "improperly disposing of trash". In terms of content, "throwing it away in the port instead of taking it home" implies to me that fishermen are throwing their trash away in receptacles; if that is the case, "at the port" would be more accurate than "in the port". On the other hand, if they are throwing trash directly in the water, "dumping it in the harbor" would be more accurate. You could "write around" this by saying, for example, "leaving it at the port". I prefer your title to simply "littering", but "marine littering" is also a good alternative (see comments above).
No. 79: A good translation, and attractively laid out, but with some errors in content and usage. For example, you translated "この調査の第２弾として" as "the second survey", but "second half of a survey" or "second part of a survey" would be more accurate. Also, in Question 4 you also translated 指導 as "ensure". That implies that the port authorities make sure that owners take their garbage home, rather than simply telling them to do it. I like your title; "garbage dumping" is more accurate in this situation than "littering" in my opinion, although "marine littering" appears to be coming into wide usage.
A final word
Reading these translations, I noticed again what a difference a little extra formatting makes. In today's market, readers are in a hurry. And this is even more the case if the customer is passing the translation on to someone else, whether a news reporter, a prospective stockholder, or an employee at a regulatory agency. To be effective, a good translation needs to be clear and readable as well as accurate and grammatically correct. I recommend that all new professionals invest an hour in their word-processing software, learning to use style sheets. Your clients will thank you.
Again, my congratulations to all contestants on a job well-done.
記事全文
2008年12月22日
英日部門には46人の応募がありました。応募して下さった皆様には心からお礼を申し上げます。厳正な審査の結果、以下の5人が最終選考に残りました（敬称略）。
No.23 藤山清一(ふじやま せいいち)
No.28 蔵本亮（くらもと りょう）
No.32 森田みどり（もりた）
No.49 南佐洋子（みなみさ ひろこ）
No.81 竹内美希子（たけうち みきこ）
さらに最終審査の結果、入賞者が次のように決定しました。
第１位 No.81 竹内美希子（神奈川県横浜市）
第２位 No. 49 南佐洋子（米国オハイオ州）
選ばれた方も、惜しくも選外となられた方も、ぜひ原文とご自分の翻訳をもう一度見直して、翻訳力向上の一助にしていただければ幸いです。
関根マイク
コンテスト実行委員
■審査講評
佐藤綾子審査員
今回の課題文"Economic Thinking for Translators"は、翻訳者の中でもあまり経済観念のない人を対象に書かれました。著者のクリス・ブレークスリー氏は経済・金融翻訳者で、JATの理事でもあります。 JAT新人翻訳コンテストにおいて、「課題文の著者に直接、語句や文の解釈について気軽に問い合わせられる」という機会はこれまでありませんでしたので、この際に building block approach とedit/editor の意味について質問してみました。
Question: Is "building block approach" a technical (or economic) term?
Chris: Regards building block approach, it simply means creating small sets that are eventually put together for a larger set, thus I give a formula for billing rate so that is understood, and then in another formula use billable rate as just one component. This is a common idiom.
最終候補作品はどれも処理に苦労していました。そのなかでは32番（ブロックをひとつずつ積み上げていくようにして･･･）が一番わかりやすかったと思います。
Question: The "editor" here just reads the translated text, checks the grammar and makes the text more readable, but does not compare the translation with the original text, right? If so, is it easy to find such a person?
Chris: As for editor, your description is correct, the idea is to just improve the English, not check for mistranslations, although you could hire such an editor/checker as well, I suppose. I don't use an editor myself, but think finding such a (monolingual) person wouldn't be difficult, such as a grad student.
応募者の多くは edit を編集に、editorを編集者にと、自動的に訳していました。しかし、編集の一般的な意味を
大辞林で調べてみると、「一定の方針のもとに、いろいろな材料を集めて新聞・雑誌・書物などを作ること。その仕事。また映画フィルム・録音テープなどを一つの作品にまとめることにもいう」とありますので、ここでのeditとは少しニュアンスが異なります。最終候補作品の中では32番、49番、81番が編集作業または校正作業と処理していました。このように作業を加えると仕事のなかに「原稿の加筆・修正」も入ってきて、若干近くなるという気がします。
他の応募者が使っていた訳語の意味も調べてみました（ 「 」内の説明はいずれも
大辞林より）。
校閲 「文書や原稿などの誤りや不備な点を調べ、検討し、訂正したり校正したりすること」
添削 「他人の詩文・答案などを、語句を添えたり削ったりして直すこと」
校正 校閲とほぼ同義で使われることもあるが（英文校正など）、「くらべ合わせて、文字の誤りを正すこと」という意味で使われる場合もある。
推敲 「詩文を作るとき、最適の字句や表現を求めて考え練り上げること」 この作業をするのは通常は本人。
校訂 「古書などの本文を他の伝本と比べ合わせて訂正すること」なので、これだと間違い。
編修 「資料を集め精選し、書物にまとめあげること。編纂」なので、これも違う。
また一般的に「編集者とは、出版社に勤務して書籍や雑誌を編集する人を指している」（
13歳のハローワークより）ので、quality editorを優秀な編集者（32番）と訳すと、「え、翻訳を直してもらうのに、ベストセラーを生み出すような人に頼むの？」とも解釈できます。ちなみに81番では「良質な編集者」と訳されていましたが、「良質な」は「労働力」には使えますが、今のところヒトには使いません。
以上、重箱の隅をつつくような指摘ではありましたが、一見簡単そうな単語もこまめに辞書を引く（サイトを検索する）べし、という一例でした。
では、最終候補５作品の簡単な講評です。
２３番 "Billable rate"を「支払いレート」に、"building block approach"を「部分構造合成法」に（技術文書ではこのように訳したり、略称として"BBA"を使ったりする例もあるが、前述のとおり、ここではそういう特殊な意味で使っているわけではない）という誤訳や不適切な訳以外に、「もしも、翻訳は早いが、編集は遅い（または編集が苦手な、または嫌いな）翻訳者なら、翻訳作業を外部委託した方が良い場合の好例となる」というミス（外部委託するのは編集作業のはず。翻訳作業まで委託したら、翻訳者には何もすることがなくなる）が致命的だった。似たような単語が出てくる文書を訳す際には、こういう見落としもよく起こるので、要注意。
２８番 「自分の単語レートで・・・」の文章における意味の取り違い、「初期ドラフト請求レート」、「翻訳完成物を作りだすスピード」、「直接顧客に帰属する時間を費やし・・・」などのこなれていない日本語表現、理解しづらい文章(最後のパラグラフの「とはいうものの・・・」)、口語表現（[どんなものであれ」）、が減点対象となった。
３２番 誤訳は少なく（"billable rate"を「実労時間給」、"spend"を「浪費すれば」に程度か）、訳漏れも見あたらず、とても丁寧に訳していたが、「翻訳作業の最初の下書き」、「クライアントから請けた仕事に直接的に帰する作業・・・」など、こなれていない表現が気になった。最初の方で、"building block approach"の訳はよかったと書いたが、その後の「翻訳者の生産性を導き出していく」はおかしい。細かいことだが、「音声認証ソフトウェア」（「認証」より「認識」の方が一般的）、「コンピューター*利用翻訳ツール」（「利用」より「支援」の方が一般的）も、よく調べてほしかった。
*「コンピューター」か、あるいは「コンピュータ」と長音記号を省略するかついては最近、ソフトウェア大手の
マイクロソフトが表記ルールを変更して「コンピューター」とする方針を打ち出したが、まだＩＴ業界には普及していないようである。
４９番 最初に読んだときは、５作品のなかで一番読みやすいと感じたが、その後原文と比較して一文ずつ読むと、冗長さが目立った。「校正」、「校正作業」、「能力のある校正者」は他作品より工夫されていた。訳漏れ（"ignoring any lifestyle impacts"）や誤訳や不正確・不適切な訳*を細かく採点した結果、３２番より少し高い、８１番より少し低い点数となった。
* 「図式化」については、「式」はあるが「図」はないため。
「積み木アプローチ」は、一般には使われない（「積み木」アプローチとカッコでくくって説明する方法もあるが）。
"Productivity" を「生産率」と訳す例もなくはないが、「生産性」の方が一般的である。
「校正を経て翻訳をより磨かれたものにし、その結果あなたのワードあたりのレートを引き上げるためにも、校正者へ支払うレートはこの金額までは自分の身銭を切ることなく上げることが可能です」 は意味を取り違えている。また「自分の身銭」は使わなくもないが、これは類語反復（tautology）である。
８１番 "＄"のそのままの使用（「ドル」とせずに）、カタカナ語の多用（「クライアント」は定着しているにしても 「アウトソース」や「アウトプット」は、IT業界ではOKかもしれないが、他ではどうだろうか？） 誤訳や不正確・不適切な訳*、わかりにくい表現（「翻訳者には弁護士と同様に、直接クライアントのために使う時間・・・」）などが減点対象となったものの、総合点で３２番と４９番を上回った。略語（B/R/H/O）の処理の仕方も５作品のなかでは一番よく、最後の段落に出てくる "nexus"も正しく解釈できていたと思う（"center" や"core"という意味）。
*「図式化」は、49番に同じ。
「翻訳に時間を取られるため」ではなく、その逆。
「経済学上正当化される」は、別に学問上そうなわけではない。
＊＊＊
付記１ 翻訳作業にとりかかる前に、似たような分野の日本語の文章をいくつか読んでおくとよいです。今回でしたら例えば
こちら
付記２ 翻訳について様々な視点から考えるには、
こちらが参考となるでしょう。
石原ゆかり審査員
コンテスト参加者の皆さん、大変お疲れ様でした。また、1位に選出された81の方、おめでとうございます。
今回の課題はこれまでと異なり、プロの翻訳者によって書かれた、ずばり私たちが携わっている実務翻訳という仕事に関する文章でした。実務翻訳者はその仕事に対して何らかの報酬をもらうからこそ「プロ」と言える訳ですから、自らの仕事に対して受け取る報酬の内容を良く理解する必要があります。実務翻訳者が行う仕事には翻訳作業そのものだけでなく、他の翻訳者が行った翻訳に誤りがないかどうか見直したり、読みやすくするために推敲や校正したりすることもあります。また、フリーの場合は特に、報酬が語数や文字数を基準に決めることもあれば、作業時間数を基準に決めることもあります。さらに、こうした報酬の支払い基準は依頼主から提示されるだけでなく、翻訳者側の方から提示するように求められることもあります。つまり、プロとして効率的に仕事をしていくには、どのような仕事に対してどのような報酬が得られるのか細かく考えておく必要があるわけです。私たち審査員としては、この題材を選ぶにあたって、著者の意見に同意する、しないは別に、この文章を翻訳する過程でそうしたビジネスの部分に目を向けてもらえればという狙いもあったのです。
さて評価ですが、まず総評から述べます。最初にトップ3を決めたのですが、翻訳者が課題文の内容を理解できているかどうかが大きな分かれ目となりました。23、28の下位 2作品は率直に言って意味が良く分かりませんでした。おそらく翻訳者自身が原典の論旨をきちんと把握していないため、結果として翻訳文も読みづらいものになってしまったようです。
原典の論旨を理解するには、文章の課題以外の部分も読むことです。実務では何万語もの文書を数人の翻訳者に分けて翻訳することもあり、担当以外の部分に目を通す時間がない場合や、担当以外の部分を入手できないこともあるのですが、受け取った資料は翻訳の手がかりとなりますので、何でもできるだけ活用しましょう。また、原典の読解力を向上する、原典の関連分野を調べるなどの勉強はもちろんのこと、ざっと目を通す、「斜め読み」などの技術を使って原典を読むスピード自体を上げることも重要な訓練です。あるいは各段落の要点をメモするなどの作業も原典理解に役立つことでしょう。余談ですが、企業内などでは「ここに書いてあることの要点だけ教えて」と頼まれることもあります。依頼する側は翻訳者や通訳者がまるで機械のようにすぐに翻訳できると思っていることも多いので、すぐに要約できないと翻訳者として失格と思われてしまうこともあるわけです。特に新人のうち、原典が母国語でないなど、原典理解に自信がない場合は、要点を短期間で掴む訓練をしてみるとよいでしょう。
では、原典の論旨ですが、キーワードは「Edit」と「billable rate」です。翻訳業界では一般に、「Edit」は原文と付き合わせて翻訳文を見直す作業で「編集」を使い、「校正」は「Proof ＝ 原文と比較せずに漢字ミスや文字抜けなどの体裁を見る作業」に使用することが多いようです。この課題文では母国語から非母国語に翻訳する際、その言語のネイティブ・スピーカーにチェックを頼むような場合などの意味合いが近いように思われますが、単に「編集」とせず、「チェック」、「推敲」、「添削」なども良いかもしれません。課題文の題になっている「billable rate」は、5作品とも「～able」の意味が出ていませんでした。「rate」は1 作品以外「レート」と訳されていましたが、日本語では意味が違うのではないでしょうか？文脈から「翻訳者が翻訳作業自体に対して受け取ることができる純翻訳単価」のような意味だと思いますが、かく言う私もぴったり来る訳が見つからないのでいずれも審査対象とはしませんでしたが、日本語として意味が通じる言葉に訳す努力が欲しかったです。
また、漢数字の使用、英数字の全角および日本語フォントの使用または不統一、スペースの有無などの不統一について一言。特にIT業界では企業ごとのスタイル指定があることが多いのでそれに従う必要がありますが、統一性が重要視される場合が多いので注意してください。一般に、漢数字は「一度」など、語句の一部である以外は横書きの文章には使用しません。英数字の全角・日本語フォント使用については、原典のファイルからのコピーが可能な場合、わざわざ入力し直すとタイプ・ミスが発生する恐れがあるので、その単語をそのままコピー＆ペーストする方が正確で、作業効率も高いと思います。
それでは作品ごとの講評に移ります。
23は直訳や逐語訳 (例「この事実について…心理的に重要な利点がある」)、意味不明な表現(例「良い場合の好例」、「図れる場合には、特にそうである」) が多く、原典理解や文章力不足が感じられました。ビジネス文書などでは数値や数式が使われていることが多く、翻訳者自身が原典を理解していないと翻訳文が不正確、または意味不明となってしまいます。たとえ数学や経済に長けていなくても、フロー図を書いてみたり、要点に蛍光ペンを引いたり、メモしたりするなど、論理を掴む努力を心がけましょう。また、罫線が使われていたのは問題です。私は審査中、Wordの蛍光ペンを使いましたが、複数行に分かれていると蛍光ペンを一度に引けず、当初、罫線表示を切っていたので理由が分からなくて困りました。実務では翻訳後の工程に影響するため、日本語の文書として必要な場合 (手紙などで日付を右寄せに変更する、表の幅が狭いときに横書きを縦書きに変更する、など) 以外に原典で使用されていない書式を使用するのは厳禁です。たとえば、翻訳の納品後にインドのオフィスでレイアウトを整えて PDFファイルを制版するとします。原典にはないのに PDFには罫線が表示されてしまう場合、インドのDTPオペレータには理由が分からず、依頼主や翻訳者に問い合わせることになり、時差もあることから、1日、2日のロスが生じ、締め切りに影響することも容易に考えられます。翻訳者は後工程のことも考慮できた方が良いですし、報酬がもらえない作業に時間をかけるのはそれこそ非効率ですよね。
28も日本語の文章としては完成度が低く、原典の理解不足が感じられました。「を作ろうと思うが」など原典にはない意味の追加、不適切な用語（例、「総所得を押し下げるし」、「翻訳完成物」、「初期ドラフト請求レート」、「大雑把な最終請求レート」)、文法や語法の誤り（例「自分で編集作業をしない今や」）、などの問題がありました。原典でわざわざ「billable rate (BR)」とあるのに、翻訳文では「(BR)」が抜けているのは読者に対して不親切です。要旨は掴めているようなので、もう少し段落ごと、1文ごとに文章をよく読んで理解を深めるようにしましょう。
32は、論旨が良く理解されているようで、読みやすく、特に誤訳は見られませんでしたが、文章力、表現力および用語選択面で今一歩でした。「modeling」（「図式」はグラフなどのことで図がないと成り立たない）、「浪費」などの誤訳、文法や語法の誤り (例、「生産性を考察する」)、口語表現 (例、「下請けに出すべきである、「請求書を起こすので」) などがありました。「billable rate」は正しいかどうかは別にして、単に「rate = レート」とせずに文脈を考慮し、工夫して訳そうという試みは好感が持てました。企業のプレゼンテーションを訳す仕事があった場合、短い箇条書きの文が並んでいることがあります。意味や内容は口頭で説明するため、メモやコメントになっていてプレゼンテーションの参加者の目には触れないので、メモやコメント文を見て箇条書きの文を適切に表現する、ある種、コピー・ライター的な技術があると重宝がられます。今後の課題は、語句の意味は取れているのでそれを冗長的にならないように簡潔に表現できるように訓練すること、国語辞典などで正しい用法を確認し、口語表現を避けるようにすることでしょう。
49は、内容理解度、文章力共に高いのですが、用語選択および表現力の点で1位の81の方に軍配が上がってしまいました。「Edit」を 5作品の中で唯一「校正」と訳していましたが、これは文脈を考えての用語選択でしょうか？文脈により適切な用語を考える姿勢は高く評価したいです。問題箇所には、「Note that...」の省略、「積み木アプローチ」、「生産率」、「図式化」、「デスク用のイス」(「オフィス用」でもいいのでは?)、「ワード数」(業界用語。読者は翻訳者なので良いのかもしれませんが)、「片付く」、「計算式の裏にあるロジック」などがありました。このような誤訳やリサーチや工夫が不足していると思われる表現、文法や語法の誤り、口語表現、不明瞭な表現などがなくなるように推敲を重ねる努力をしてください。原典を読んでいない他の人に読んでもらうのも良いでしょう。また、特にカタカナ語など、年配の人に聞いて意味が分かるかどうか確認してみるのもアイデアです。また、「です・ます」調が使用されていましたが、たとえば取扱説明書のように読者が「客」のような場合には適切ですが、このような論文や報告書などの場合は読者に敬語表現を使用する必要がなく、かえって冗長的で読みづらい印象を与えます。減点対象にはしていませんが、こうした文脈に合わせて適切な文体を考慮するのも翻訳者に必要な技術の1つです。
81は原典の内容を一番良く理解している感じで、簡潔さを心がけてか、全体的に表現がこなれていて読みやすかった点から1位となりました。式の記述や、式内で使用している記号に英語の注釈を付け、英語が必ずしも分からない読者にとって分かりやすく表現しようという試みも見られました。残念な点は、「from taking time away...」の誤訳、「(=spend)」の省略、「納品できる状態」、「マイナス（プラス）の幅」などの不適切または不明瞭な表現があったことです。翻訳後、提出まで時間がある場合は、一度「寝かせて」見直すと「勘違い誤訳」を防ぐことができるでしょう。それから斜体の使用や「500語／時×$0.15＝$75」は見づらかったです。個人的には「自分の」とするより「自身の」という表現の方がきれいな気がしました。今後は、さらに日本語を勉強し、英語に引きずられずに正しく翻訳できる努力を続け、「読者に優しい翻訳」を意識すると良いでしょう。
前回以上に講評文が長くなってしまいましたが、プロの翻訳者を目指す方にとって少しでも何か参考になれば幸いです。
千桝靖審査員
今回のコンテストに応募された皆様、本当にお疲れ様でした。
最初に申し上げておきますが（批評する前には相応しくないかもしれませんが）、自分の翻訳に対する批評/称賛/コメント/悪口等は、「いい意味で話半分」に聞くようにしてください。これから長い翻訳人生、同じように訳しているつもりでも、絶賛されることもあれば、こき下ろされることもあるかと思います。また、翻訳する側も、どんなコンテンツでも常に同じ品質で翻訳することは、不可能に近い離れ業です。ですから、今回入選された方は、「翻訳？…ちょろいな」と思わずに、半分は素直に喜んで今後の励みにして頂ければよいと思いますが、半分は応募前の不安な気持ちを忘れずに、さらに努力して頂きたいと思います。一方、今回残念ながら落選された方も、半分は批評をよく読んで素直にどこが悪かったのかを見直して、今後のために謙虚に反省して頂きたいと思いますが、立ち直れないほど深刻に捉える必要はありません。「違う審査員なら、評価も変わっていたかもしれない」ぐらいにどんと構えて、落ち込む暇があったら、さっさと立ち直って次回の翻訳のための勉強に励んでください。要は、どんな評価を受けてもそれを次の翻訳に活かせる「大人の」翻訳者になってください。
評価には減点制を採用しています。その理由は、減点制が実務翻訳の評価の主流であると思われること、ならびに加点法は、どうしても客観性が低くなると考えるからです。誤訳、ワードチョイス、訳漏れ、スタイルなどの問題個所について、深刻さの度合いに応じて-0.5、-1、-2、-3、-4、-5点のいずれかの点を減点し、減点合計の少ない翻訳を1位としました。
さて、今年のお題は、ずばり、翻訳者の「お金/Money/マネー」のお話でした。昨年の応募者の皆さんは、文体についてかなりリサーチしておられたようですが、今年はどんな文体にすべきかについてとまどいがあったようです。「マネー！」についてとはいえ、読み物としても読みやすくしようという著者の工夫（←これを訳出するのが難しいですね）は容易に読み取れますので、投資信託の交付目論見書のような文体では退屈すぎます。かといって、ライザ・ミネリ＆ジョエル・グレイ風（古っ！）では、行き過ぎです。このあたりまでは、皆さん見当をつけておられたようですが、実際参考になるような文章を見つけられなかったのか、全体のぎこちなさ、統一感のなさが昨年より強く感じられました。また、文体以外でも日本語の問題が目につきました。以下、個別にコメントさせて頂きます。
23番
一行毎に罫線を引いた表の中に翻訳文を入れた書式は、WORDでの翻訳の提出方法として不適切です。翻訳依頼先から特に指定がなくとも、常識的に考えられる翻訳の後工程（校正・編集やPDF・XML・FrameMakerなどへの変換など）を容易にするできるだけシンプルな書式を心がけることが必要です。全体的にぎこちなさが目立ち、「解析」「生産量」「この事実」「この草稿」「最終の単語数」「同額の」など解りづらいワードチョイスが多く見られます。キーワードである「支払レート」や「翻訳作業を」の誤訳も大きな減点対象です。「前記のBR方程式に・・・を差し引いておく」は、結果は原文と同じになるとはいえ、ロジックが原文と逆です。意訳に走らず、原文を（意味だけでなく、論理展開、コノテーション、リズムなども）尊重するという翻訳の基本姿勢を確立させて頂きたいと思います。コロンが2か所放置されているのも気になりました。今後は、日本語の文章力向上にも努力してください。
28番
残念なのは、意味がわかりづらい表現が多いことです。「翻訳の周辺活動」「金銭の観点から」「初期ドラフト請求レート」などは、通常の日本語では呼応しない言葉を組み合わせているために、また「編集作業をしない今や」「翻訳物」などは言葉の用法がずれているために意味が伝わりません。「できると思うごとに」は、修正漏れでしょうか。今後お勧めしたいのは、翻訳仲間とお互いの翻訳をチェックすることです。これを重ねることで、独りよがりの表現を矯正できると思います。表現力の問題として、冒頭の「・・・と思うが、・・・から話を始めよう。」は唐突すぎます。簡潔さを狙ったのは理解できますが、もう少し工夫が必要です。「自分の単語レートで」は誤訳です。他の翻訳を見て正解を検討してください。
32番
大きな減点はありませんが、細かい部分で詰めの甘いところが多く見られたのがもったいない翻訳です。「いくら」「何単語」「きれい」などのレジスターの低い言い回し、「～だが、一方」「最初の下書き」などの冗長な表現、「導き出していく」「実労時間給(BR)」「帰する」「損失なしで」「浪費すれば」「有利な」などの不適切表現がありました。「決めるのか」の最後の助詞「を」を省略するのは、この場合は適切ではないでしょう。「コンピューター利用」は、リサーチ不足の印象を与えてしまいます。英日実務翻訳には「定訳」が多数存在します。それを正当な理由なく無視することは大変危険です。木を見て森を見ずという言葉がありますが、32番については、森はおおよそ見えているので、見直しプロセスを強化して、もう少し木の方も見て欲しかったという印象です。
49番
唯一の「ですます調」ですが、やはりその影響か細かい減点が多く、32番と同じく、見直しプロセスを強化して細かい表現にも注意してください。訳漏れが大小１つずつありました。大は「ignoring any lifestyle impacts」、小は、「just」です。この「just」はしっかり意味があるので、誤訳とも言えます。訳漏れは、翻訳を見直していないと見なされるので、誤訳以上に悪い印象を与えます。私がチェッカーをしていたとき、１ページ目で誤訳が3つあっても2ページ目に進みますが、訳漏れが3つあったら、翻訳会社に送り返していました。その他、問題表現を列挙しておきます。「積み木アプローチ」「生産率」「図式化（図はないですよね）」「変動要素」「項目」「草稿」「加えなければならない」「検討手順」「こうです」「身銭を切る」「食ってしまう」「負の影響」「デスク用の」
81番
致命的な誤訳「翻訳に時間を取られるため」に加えて、致命的ではないものの明らかな誤訳「経済学上」があるにもかかわらず、一位になった要因は、日本語表現での減点件数が少なかった、または減点が軽かったためです。このことからも、翻訳後に見直し作業を行って細かい問題を訂正することが、いかに大切かがおわかり頂けると思います。気になった表現としてあげておきたいのは「図式化」、「アウトプット」、「アウトソース」。IT翻訳、技術翻訳では「アウトプット」でOKの場合が多いですが、それ以外では、まだ注意が必要です。「アウトソース」は、名詞ならぎりぎりOKかもしれませんが、動詞「アウトソースする」はレジスターが下がってしまいます。また、「just」が訳出できていませんでした。
読ませて頂いた翻訳には、優れた点、部分的な名訳もありましたが、スペースの関係で割愛しています。すいませんでした。皆様、これからも頑張ってください。
記事全文
2008年11月21日
最終候補作品 日英
最終審査に進んだ6作品です（#4, #17, #25, #30, #79, #83）。
応募番号4番
Litter Reduction Plan
The 11th Regional Coast Guard Headquarters conducted a survey on what people whose lives are affected by the ocean think about the trash situation there to provide reference on measures to deal with the garbage. The survey was conducted via questionnaires answered by 95 fishing tackle and equipment stores on Okinawa Island.
The survey was conducted a second time via questionnaires to the island’s fishing industry associations. The results appear below.
Questionnaire on the Ocean Litter Reduction Plan (Fishing Industry Association Version)
1. In what month does your association hold its general meeting each year?
A. May (9 associations, 43%) B. June (11 associations, 52%) C. December (1 association, 5%)
2. How many members does your association have?
Total Members: 3,771 (Regular Members: 1,848, 49%; Associate Members: 1,923, 51%)
3. Does your association encourage the proper disposal of polystyrene bait boxes?
Yes: 11 associations (52%) No: 10 associations (48%)
Those who answered “Yes” encourage recycling, have them cleaned, or dispose of them at recycling or incineration facilities.
4. Does your association encourage members to bring back trash produced on boats?
Yes: 14 associations (67%) No: 7 associations (33%)
Those who answered “Yes” encourage members to separate and bring back their trash, throw it away in designated nets after returning to port, or separate the trash and throw it away at designated dumping areas at port.
5. Does your association in some way direct its members to dispose of garbage, bilge etc. produced during maintenance while anchored?
Yes: 12 associations (57%) No: 9 associations (43%)
Those who answered “Yes” gather it at one place in the port, incinerate it at a facility, or have it collected by a waste disposal company.
6. Does your association conduct periodic cleanups at port?
Yes: 19 associations (90%) No: 2 associations (10%)
Those who answered “Yes” do so before events, clean up periodically, or leave it to members or other companies.
7. Do you think your association’s members are highly conscious of beautification or engage in a high amount of beautification activity?
Very high: 1 association (5%) High: 11 associations (52%) Low: 9 associations (43%)
8. Does your association think the trash situation on the seaside and in the ocean is getting worse?
Much worse: 7 associations (33%) Worse: 13 associations (62%) Not worse: 1 association (5%)
9. How does your association treat residue from mozuku net cleaning?
A. Leave them to sink and decompose in the fishing port, then bring them to land for treatment.
B. Collect the nets, take them to be cleaned at a place for drying nets, then let them float in the ocean.
C. Wash them and let them sink.
D. Clean them as much as possible at the port, then bury them on land.
10. Is your association aware of Okinawa Prefecture’s Island Beautification Act to prevent litter?
Yes: 9 associations (19%) No: 9 associations (43%) No answer: 8 associations
11. Please give us your opinion on any other garbage problems.
A. The unethical behavior and manners of fishermen in ports is a problem.
B. The government should take urgent action on industrial waste.
C. Household garbage is being thrown away at ports, and fishermen are throwing garbage away rather than bringing it back with them.
D. Garbage is flowing into ports from rivers, and vinyl garbage in particular is hindering fishing boats’ navigation.
E. Many people are coming to ports in their cars to throw away garbage.
* All percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number and further adjusted so that they add up to a total of 100% for each question.
応募番号17番
Anti-Littering Measures
The Eleventh Regional Coast Guard headquarters conducted a survey among 95 fishing tackle retailers in Okinawa Main Island in order to examine the awareness of marine pollution among those who spend time at sea. The survey is also going to be used for reference purposes for anti-littering measures in the future.
As the second part of this research series, they did a survey among fishermen cooperative societies in Okinawa Main Island. The results of the survey are as follows.
Results of the survey on anti-littering measures at sea (among fishermen cooperative societies)
1. In what month does your fishermen cooperative have a general meeting?
A. May, 9 cooperatives (43%)
B. June, 11 cooperatives (52%)
C. December, 1 cooperative (5%)
2. How many current members does your cooperative have?
Total membership 3771 - 1848 regular members (49%,) and 1923 associate members (51%).
3. Does your cooperative advise the members to appropriately dispose bait boxes made of expanded polystyrene?
A. Yes, 11 cooperatives (approx. 52%)
B. No, 10 cooperatives (approx. 48%)
If you answered yes to the question 3, what is your advice regarding appropriate disposal?
A. Encourage the members to reuse the bait boxes.
B. Advise them to have the bait boxes disposed by waste collectors.
C. Encourage recycling or disposal of bait boxes at incineration facilities.
4. Do you advise the members to take the garbage with them when leaving the ship?
A. Yes, 14 cooperatives (Approx. 67%)
B. No, 7 cooperatives (Approx. 33%)
If you answered yes to the question 4, please explain.
A. Advise the members to separate the garbage and take them off board.
B. Advise them to dispose the garbage in assigned plastic containers after arriving to a port.
C. Advise them to separate the garbage and dispose them in trash receptacles at a port.
5. Do you advise the members regarding the waste and bilge water disposal during their ship’s stay at a port?
A. Yes, 12 cooperatives (approx. 57%)
B. No, 9 cooperatives (approx. 43%)
If you answered yes to the question 5, what is your advice?
A. Leave them at an assigned location in a port.
B. Dispose them at an incineration facility.
C. Have them collected by waste disposal specialists.
6. Do you clean ports regularly?
A. Yes, 19 cooperatives (approx. 90%)
B. No, 2 cooperatives (approx. 10%)
If you answered yes to the question 6, please explain further.
A. Clean before events.
B. Clean regularly.
C. Have members clean or hire professional cleaners.
7. Do you think the cooperative members are environmentally conscious?
A. Highly conscious, 1 cooperative (approx. 5%)
B. Conscious, 11 cooperatives (approx. 52%)
C. Not conscious, 9 cooperatives (approx. 62%)
8. Do you think the problem of litter at sea and surrounding areas is worsening?
A. Extremely worsening. 7 cooperatives (approx 33%)
B. Starting to get worse. 13 cooperatives (approx. 62%)
C. Not worsening. 1 cooperative (approx. 5%)
9. What do you do with remaining dirt in the fishing nets after cleaning?
A. Leave the nets in the sea in fishing ports until the remaining dirt gets decomposed. Then dispose them on shore.
B. Collect and wash the fishing nets at a cleaning location. Throw the used water and dirt into the sea.
C. Wash the fishing nets and let the used water and dirt subside naturally.
D. Wash the fishing nets in ports. When a certain amount of dirt is accumulated, collect and dispose by landfill.
10. Do you know the anti-littering ordinance, Churashima Environmental Beautification Ordinance?
A. Yes, 4 cooperatives (approx. 19%)
B. Never heard of it, 9 cooperatives (approx. 43%)
8 cooperatives did not answer this question.
11. Please share any opinions and concerns you may have regarding littering problems.
A. Troubled because of fishermen’s low moral and lack of manner.
B. Administrative organs need to regulate industrial waste disposal methods immediately.
C. Household wastes are left in ports. Also, fishermen leave their garbage in ports.
D. Garbage from rivers flows into ports. Especially plastics are obstructing the paths of fishing boats.
E. Increasing numbers of people drive to ports to throw away their garbage.
応募番号25番
Measures to Prevent Littering
In order to improve anti-littering initiatives in the future, the 11th Regional Coast Guard Headquarters conducted a survey of 95 fishing supply stores on Okinawa Island to see what those who live and work around the sea think about garbage in the ocean.
In this second round, we surveyed the member cooperatives of the Okinawa Island Fisheries Cooperative Association. The results of the questionnaire are as follows.
Questionnaire Survey on Measures to Prevent Littering in the Sea (Fisheries Cooperative Assoc. edition)
1. In what month is the cooperative’s yearly general meeting held?
In May - 9 co-ops (43%) In June – 11 co-ops (52%) In December - 1 co-op (5%)
2. How many co-op members are there currently?
3771 members (Full members: 1848 (49%), associate members: 1923 (51%))
3. Does the co-op actively encourage the proper disposal of polystyrene foam bait boxes?
Yes – 11 co-ops (approx. 52%) No – 10 co-ops (approx. 48%)
Detailed responses from those who answered Yes to Question 3:
1. Encourage their reuse
2. Contract with a cleaning agency to dispose of them
3. Recycle them or dispose of them at an incineration facility
4. Does the co-op instruct fishing crews to bring their on-board garbage back with them?
Yes – 14 co-ops (approx. 67%) No – 7 co-ops (approx. 33%)
Detailed responses from those who answered Yes to Question 4:
1. Encourage crews to separate and bring back garbage
2. Have crews dump garbage in designated containers upon returning to port
3. Instruct crews to separate and place garbage in harbor dumping sites
5. Does the co-op encourage the disposal of waste, bilge, etc. produced while undergoing maintenance at anchor?
Yes – 12 co-ops (approx. 57%) No – 9 co-ops (approx. 43%)
Detailed responses from those who answered Yes to Question 5:
1. Deposit waste/bilge at a given place within the harbor
2. Incinerate waste/bilge on-site
3. Have a waste disposal company collect it
6. Does the cooperative clean the harbor periodically?
Yes – 19 co-ops (approx. 90%) No – 2 co-ops (10%)
Detailed responses from those who answered No to Question 6:
1. Cleaning is done prior to events
2. Harbor is cleaned periodically
3. Cleaning is done by co-op members or a contracted company
7. Do you think your co-op’s members’ awareness of beautification efforts is high?
Very high – 1 co-op (approx. 5%) High – 11 co-ops (approx 52%) Low – 9 co-ops (approx 43%)
8. Do you think that trash scattered onto the shore and into the ocean has become worse?
It is much worse – 7 co-ops (approx. 33%)
It is growing worse – 13 co-ops (approx. 62%)
It is not becoming worse – 1 co-op (approx. 5%)
9. How does your co-op clean residue off of its mozuku seaweed nets?
1. Immerse the net in the harbor and leave it until the residue decays, then haul the net onshore and clean it
2. Take in the net, clean it in the drying area, then rinse it in the sea
3. Clean the net and then let it sink naturally
4. Clean the net in the harbor, then once the residue has accumulated collect it and bury it on shore
10. Have you heard of Okinawa Prefecture’s “Chura-shima Environmental Beautification Ordinance,” an anti-littering ordinance?
Yes – 4 co-ops (approx. 19%) No – 9 co-ops (43%) No response – 8 co-ops
11. Please let us know if you have any opinions concerning littering and trash issues.
1. The poor manners and morals of fishermen in the harbor are a problem
2. The government should arrange to take in industrial waste as soon as possible
3. The reality is that people throw their household waste into the harbor, and fishermen do not take their garbage with them when they leave
4. Garbage, especially plastic items, flows from rivers into the harbor and blocks fishing boats from moving
5. The number of people coming to the harbor by car and throwing garbage away is increasing
応募番号30番
Measures to Prevent Trash Being Thrown into the Ocean
To help identify measures to prevent trash being thrown into the ocean, the 11th Regional Coast Guard Headquarters has conducted a survey of people involved in ocean-related work for their opinions on the current state of the seas around Okinawa. The survey was carried out at in two parts: the first past surveyed 95 fishing tackle stores on Okinawa’s main island, while the second part questioned representatives of the main island’s fishery cooperatives.
Results for the second part of the survey are as follows.
Survey to Identify Measures to Prevent Trash Being Thrown into the Ocean (Fishery Cooperatives)
1. Which month does your cooperative hold its annual general meeting?
① In May: 9 fishery cooperatives (43% of total respondents)
② In June: 11 (52%)
③ In December: 1 (5%)
2. How many members does your cooperative currently have?
3,771 members in total: full members, 1,848 (49%); associate members, 1,923 (51%)
3. Do you instruct your members on how to appropriately dispose of Styrofoam bait boxes?
a) Yes: 11 (approx. 52%)
b) No: 10 (approx. 48%)
Examples of answers provided by “Yes” respondents
① We provide instructions on reusing the boxes.
② Our members outsource the disposal of the boxes to specialist contractors.
③ Our members recycle the boxes or dispose of them at an incinerator.
4. Do you instruct your members on how to stow and bring back the trash they generate onboard when at sea?
a) Yes: 14 (approx. 67%)
b) No: 7 (approx. 33%)
Examples of answers provided by “Yes” respondents
① We provide instructions on separating trash and returning with it to port.
② Our members dispose of the separated trash in designated collection bins on returning to port.
③ We provide instructions on separating and disposing of the trash at a designated site within the port.
5. Do you provide instructions on how to correctly dispose of trash and similar substances, such as bilge, that are generated when the boat is undergoing maintenance within port, and if so, what kind of instructions?
a) Yes: 12 (approx. 57%)
b) No: 9 (approx. 43%)
Examples of answers provided by “Yes” respondents
① We have established a designated site within the port for the disposal of trash and similar substances.
② Our members incinerate trash and other waste at a facility within the port.
③ Trash and other waste are collected by specialist contractors for disposal.
6. Are the port facilities cleaned regularly?
a) Yes: 19 (approx. 90%)
b) No: 2 (approx. 10%)
Examples of answers for “Yes” respondents
① Cleaning is carried out prior to an event taking place at the port.
② Cleaning is carried out regularly.
③ Cleaning is carried out by members of the cooperative or outsourced to a cleaning contractor.
7. Do you think member awareness of the need to keep the oceans clean is high and are they actively doing so?
a) Extremely aware: 1 (approx. 5%)
b) Very aware: 11 (approx. 52%)
c) Not very aware: 9 (approx. 43%)
8. To what extent do you think the problem of people incorrectly throwing away trash at beaches and into the ocean is getting worse?
a) Getting much worse: 7 (approx. 33%)
b) Getting worse to some extent: 13 (approx. 62%)
c) Not getting worse: 1 (approx. 5%)
9. How do your members dispose of the waste residue that collects on mozuku* nets?
① Our members submerge the nets within the port until the residue decomposes and then clean the nets on land.
② Our members collect the nets, clean them at a net-drying area, and then dispose of the residue in the ocean.
③ Our members clean the nets within the port and let the residue decompose naturally.
④ Our members clean the nets within the port and, if a certain amount of residue remains, they collect it and bury it on land.
10. Are you aware of the “Ordinance for the Beautification of the Chura Islands,” an Okinawa Prefectural Government ordinance that aims to address the problem of trash being thrown into the ocean and related problems?
a) Aware of it: 4 (approx. 19%)
b) Not aware of it at all: 9 (approx. 43%)
(No responses from 8 cooperatives)
11. If you have any other thoughts about the problem of trash being thrown into the ocean or about related problems, please write them here.
① The bad manners of people fishing at the port is a problem.
② The government should make immediate preparations to accept industrial waste.
③ Some people dump their household trash in the port. Also, people fishing at the port are not taking their trash home but are rather throwing it away in the port.
④ Trash is flowing into the port from rivers. In particular, plastic trash causes problems for boats entering and leaving the port.
⑤ Many people are driving to the port to throw away their trash.
* An edible seaweed
応募番号79番
Measures to deal with garbage dumping
The 11th Regional Maritime Safety Headquarters conducted a survey among people whose livelihoods are tied to the ocean to find out what they think of the current garbage situation in marine areas. A survey of 95 fishing supply stores on the main island of Okinawa was carried out for reference purposes in formulating future anti-garbage measures.
This was the second survey by questionnaire conducted among the Fisheries Cooperative Associations of the main island of Okinawa. The results of the survey are as follows.
Survey by questionnaire on measures to deal with marine garbage dumping (Fisheries Cooperative Association version)
1. In which month does your association hold its annual general meeting?
① May: 9 associations (43%)
② June: 11 associations (52%)
③ December: 1 association (5%)
2. How many members does your association currently have?
3771 members (1848 full members (49%), 1923 associate members (51%))
3. Does your association supervise the proper handling and disposal of styrofoam bait boxes?
Yes: 11 associations (about 52%), No: 10 associations (about 48%)
Responses of those who answered yes:
① We supervise the reuse of such boxes
② Disposal is outsourced to cleaners
③ Boxes are disposed of by recycling or incineration facilities
4. Do you ensure that any garbage on board a ship gets taken home?
Yes: 14 associations (about 67%), No: 7 associations (about 33%)
Responses of those who answered yes:
① We ensure that garbage is sorted and taken home
② Garbage is disposed of in designated nets after arrival at port
③ We ensure that garbage is sorted and placed at garbage dumps within the port
5. Do you supervise the disposal of garbage, bilge, etc that accompanies in-harbor maintenance while the ship is on the berth? How?
Yes: 12 associations (about 57%), No: 9 associations (about 43%)
Responses (to “How?”) of those who answered yes:
① Placed at fixed locations within the port
② Disposed of by incineration within the facility
③ Collected and disposed of by waste disposal services
6. Is cleaning of the port carried out on a regular basis?
Yes: 19 associations (about 90%), No: 2 associations (10%)
Responses of those who answered no:
① Carried out before events and functions
② Carried out on a regular basis
③ Delegated to association members, or outsourced to cleaners
7. Do you think members of your association are highly conscious of beautification (activities)?
Extremely conscious: 1 association (about 5%), Highly conscious: 11 associations (about 52%), Not conscious: 9 associations (about 43%)
8. Do you think the garbarge scatter situation in seaside and marine areas is deteriorating?
Seriously deteriorating: 7 associations (about 33%), Continuing to deteriorate: 13 associations (about 62%), Don’t think so: 1 association (about 5%)
9. How do you dispose of the residue from cleaning the mozuku[1] seaweed nets?
① After leaving them submerged in the fishing harbor until they decompose in the sea, they are taken onshore and disposed of.
② They are collected, cleaned at the net drying area, and then flushed into the sea.
③ They are washed and allowed to settle naturally.
④ They are washed in the port. After a certain number has been gathered, they are collected and buried onshore.
10. Are you aware of Okinawa’s Churashima Environmental Beautification Ordinance, which aims to prevent littering and garbage dumping?
Yes: 4 associations (about 19%), Not at all: 9 associations (43%) *8 associations gave no reply
11. If you have any other opinions about the garbage problem, please record them below.
① The lack of ethics and etiquette among fishermen at the port with regard to garbage disposal is a problem.
② The administration should arrange for the prompt removal of industrial waste products.
③ Disposing of household waste inside the port has become common practice. In addition, fishermen get rid of their garbage there without taking it home with them.
④ Garbage from rivers flows into the port. Plastic waste in particular obstructs the passage of fishing boats.
⑤ The number of people who drive into the port and dispose of their garbage there has increased.
[1] Cladosiphon okamuranus and Sphaerotrichia divaricata, types of edible seaweed.
応募番号83番
Anti-Littering Measures
The 11th Regional Maritime Safety Headquarters conducted an investigation to find out how people involved with the sea perceived the marine litter situation in their area. A questionnaire survey of 95 Okinawa Island fishing gear shops was also conducted for use as reference material in developing future anti-littering measures.
For the second part of this investigation, a questionnaire survey of Okinawa Island fisheries cooperatives was conducted. The results are as follows:
Questionnaire Survey of Fisheries Cooperatives regarding Marine Litter Countermeasures
1.) When does your cooperative hold its annual general meeting?
- May - 9 (43%)
- June - 11 (52%)
- December - 1 (5%)
2.) What is the current total number of cooperative members?
Full members - 1,848 (49%)
Associate members - 1,923 (51%)
Total - 3,771
3.) Does your cooperative have a policy in place for the proper disposal of polystyrene bait boxes?
Yes - 11 (52%)
No - 10 (48%)
If "Yes," describe:
- Boxes are reused
- Co-op contracts with a professional garbage-collecting service for disposal
- Boxes are disposed of at recycling or incineration facilities
4.) Does your cooperative have a policy regarding taking home garbage produced on fishing vessels?
Yes - 14 (67%)
No - 7 (33%)
If "Yes," describe:
- We have a policy of sorting and taking home garbage
- Trash is disposed of in designated receptacles after returning to port
- We have a policy of sorting garbage and leaving it at garbage collection points in the harbor
5.) Do you have a policy regarding the disposal of garbage, bilge water and other waste while vessels are in harbor for maintenance?
Yes - 12 (57%)
No - 9 (43%)
If "Yes," describe:
- Garbage is left at a designated spot within the harbor
- Garbage is incinerated on-site
- Garbage is collected by a professional disposal service
6.) Do you engage in harbor cleanups on a regular basis?
Yes - 19 (90%)
No - 2 (10%)
If "Yes," describe:
- Carried out before major events
- Carried out on a regular basis
- Cleanups carried out by co-op members or outsourced to professionals
7.) How high a level of awareness of and participation in cleanup efforts do you feel your cooperative's members have?
Very High - 1 (5%)
High - 11 (52%)
Low - 9 (43%)
8.) Do you think the litter situation on the beach and on the sea has gotten worse?
It's gotten extremely worse - 7 (33%)
It's getting worse - 13 (62%)
Don't think it's gotten worse - 1 (5%)
9.) How do you dispose of the residue left after cleaning your seaweed nets?
- The nets are submerged in the fishing harbor until the residue decomposes; the nets are then hauled in and the residue disposed of
- Nets are hauled in, and the residue is washed off at the net drying place and allowed to flow out to sea
- Residue is washed off and naturally sinks to the bottom of the harbor
- Residue is washed off into the harbor, and recovered and buried on land after enough of it accumulates
10.) Have you heard of the Chura-shima Environmental Beautification Ordinance enacted by Okinawa Prefecture to help stop littering?
Yes - 4 (19%)
No - 9 (43%)
No answer - 8 (38%)
11.) Please add any other comments you have regarding the litter problem.
- The inconsiderateness and bad manners shown by people fishing in the harbor is a big problem.
- The government needs to take immediate action to deal with industrial waste.
- The reality is that people dump their household garbage in the harbor. Also, fishermen leave their garbage behind instead of taking it home.
- Garbage from rivers is carried into the harbor; plastics bags in particular are interfering with the sailing of fishing boats.
- More and more people are driving into the harbor to dump garbage.
記事全文
