Statement:\nIndigenous tribes living near the Amazon forest are cutting down trees to meet their basic needs, severely affecting the ecological balance in the region.\n\nCourses of Action:\nI. All tribes living near the Amazon rainforest should be forced to shift to urban areas of the country.\nII. The government should implement community-based forest management and sustainable livelihood programs (e.g., regulated fuelwood, agroforestry, and alternative income) to reduce deforestation.\n\nWhich course(s) of action logically follow(s)?

Introduction / Context:
Course-of-action problems ask which proposed steps logically address the stated issue in a targeted, feasible, and proportionate manner. The issue here is ecological imbalance due to tree cutting by indigenous tribes for basic needs. Any sensible response must reduce deforestation while respecting human rights and practical on-ground realities.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Cause: Subsistence extraction by indigenous communities contributes to forest loss.
• Goal: Protect ecology while safeguarding livelihoods and cultural rights.
• Constraints: Human rights, feasibility in remote geographies, enforcement capacity, long-term sustainability.

Concept / Approach:
Evaluate each course for relevance, proportionality, and practicality. Solutions that are rights-compatible, incentive-aligned, and locally co-owned tend to be durable. Overbroad coercive relocation often fails on ethics, cost, and outcomes.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Global conservation practice supports community forestry, payment for ecosystem services, and livelihood diversification as effective, rights-respecting strategies to reduce deforestation.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming environmental protection requires displacement; ignoring that subsistence pressure can be managed through co-governance and alternatives.

Final Answer:
Only II follows.