Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: if both I and II follows
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
Conservation crises typically demand both regulatory protection and on-the-ground stewardship. The statement signals a sharp population decline, warranting immediate protective status and broader community engagement to address threats such as by-catch, habitat loss, and pollution.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
Legal designation (I) enables stricter penalties, funding, and coordinated recovery plans, while breeding programs can support population rebound. However, many threats are distributed and chronic; partnering with fisherfolk and riverine/coastal communities (II) increases compliance, reduces incidental harm, and improves surveillance. The actions are complementary and jointly strengthen recovery odds.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Verification / Alternative check:
Either action alone is weaker: laws without local buy-in underperform; communities without legal backing lack authority/resources. Together they address biological and social dimensions.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Common Pitfalls:
Overemphasizing captive breeding while neglecting habitat; ignoring livelihood-linked incentives for compliance.
Final Answer:
Both I and II follow.
Discussion & Comments