Question Description
Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.Poor and rural people around the world rely on plants and animals for shelter, food, income, and medicine. In fact, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal on sustainable ecosystems acknowledges many developing societies close relationship with nature when it calls for increased capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities. But how is this to be achieved?The 1975 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) provides a viable framework for reducing poverty while also conserving nature. It regulates the harvesting and exchange of more than 35,000 wildlife species across a range of locales. Nature has been described as the GDP of the poor. The CITES framework, combined with strong national conservation policies, can simultaneously protect wild species and benefit poor, rural, and indigenous people, by encouraging countries and communities to adopt sound environmental management plans.For example, under CITES, Andes communities shear the vicuna for its fine wool, which they sell to the luxury fashion industry in other parts of the world. Cameroonians collect African cherry bark for export to European pharmaceuticalcompanies, and people on the Tibetan Plateau in Bhutan make a living selling caterpillar fungus to the traditional-medicine industry. However, outside of CITES, limited guidance is available to ensure that legal trade is sustainable and beneficial to the poor. Sustainable trade often depends on poor and rural communities conserving their own resources at the local level. To see what that looks like, the International Trade Center (ITC) recently examined how people in Southeast Asia sustainably manage the CITES-listed python trade. In Vietnam, an estimated 1,000 households farm and trade pythons, and python harvesting in Malaysia provides incomes for low-skilled, low-income workers during periods when other employment opportunities are either out of season, or simply scarce because of larger economic factors.The biggest threats to the legal wildlife trade are poaching, smuggling, improper trade permitting, and animal abuse, all of which must be addressed by regulators and rural community stakeholders at the local level. Fortunately, rural communities are already in the best position to protect wildlife, so long as they are motivated to do so. In the right circumstances, a virtuous cycle, whereby local producers have a direct interest in protecting wildlife (because they are benefiting from its legal trade) is the best - and sometimes the only - long-term solution to the problem of sustainability.Q.Nature has been described as the GDP of the poor.From the above it can be implied that:1) Nature is the only source of income for the poor.2) Indigenous people see no harm in illegal wildlife trade.3) Conservation of nature is not a priority for the poor.4) Legal trade is sustainable and beneficial to the poor.a)1b)2c)3d)4Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.Poor and rural people around the world rely on plants and animals for shelter, food, income, and medicine. In fact, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal on sustainable ecosystems acknowledges many developing societies close relationship with nature when it calls for increased capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities. But how is this to be achieved?The 1975 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) provides a viable framework for reducing poverty while also conserving nature. It regulates the harvesting and exchange of more than 35,000 wildlife species across a range of locales. Nature has been described as the GDP of the poor. The CITES framework, combined with strong national conservation policies, can simultaneously protect wild species and benefit poor, rural, and indigenous people, by encouraging countries and communities to adopt sound environmental management plans.For example, under CITES, Andes communities shear the vicuna for its fine wool, which they sell to the luxury fashion industry in other parts of the world. Cameroonians collect African cherry bark for export to European pharmaceuticalcompanies, and people on the Tibetan Plateau in Bhutan make a living selling caterpillar fungus to the traditional-medicine industry. However, outside of CITES, limited guidance is available to ensure that legal trade is sustainable and beneficial to the poor. Sustainable trade often depends on poor and rural communities conserving their own resources at the local level. To see what that looks like, the International Trade Center (ITC) recently examined how people in Southeast Asia sustainably manage the CITES-listed python trade. In Vietnam, an estimated 1,000 households farm and trade pythons, and python harvesting in Malaysia provides incomes for low-skilled, low-income workers during periods when other employment opportunities are either out of season, or simply scarce because of larger economic factors.The biggest threats to the legal wildlife trade are poaching, smuggling, improper trade permitting, and animal abuse, all of which must be addressed by regulators and rural community stakeholders at the local level. Fortunately, rural communities are already in the best position to protect wildlife, so long as they are motivated to do so. In the right circumstances, a virtuous cycle, whereby local producers have a direct interest in protecting wildlife (because they are benefiting from its legal trade) is the best - and sometimes the only - long-term solution to the problem of sustainability.Q.Nature has been described as the GDP of the poor.From the above it can be implied that:1) Nature is the only source of income for the poor.2) Indigenous people see no harm in illegal wildlife trade.3) Conservation of nature is not a priority for the poor.4) Legal trade is sustainable and beneficial to the poor.a)1b)2c)3d)4Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.Poor and rural people around the world rely on plants and animals for shelter, food, income, and medicine. In fact, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal on sustainable ecosystems acknowledges many developing societies close relationship with nature when it calls for increased capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities. But how is this to be achieved?The 1975 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) provides a viable framework for reducing poverty while also conserving nature. It regulates the harvesting and exchange of more than 35,000 wildlife species across a range of locales. Nature has been described as the GDP of the poor. The CITES framework, combined with strong national conservation policies, can simultaneously protect wild species and benefit poor, rural, and indigenous people, by encouraging countries and communities to adopt sound environmental management plans.For example, under CITES, Andes communities shear the vicuna for its fine wool, which they sell to the luxury fashion industry in other parts of the world. Cameroonians collect African cherry bark for export to European pharmaceuticalcompanies, and people on the Tibetan Plateau in Bhutan make a living selling caterpillar fungus to the traditional-medicine industry. However, outside of CITES, limited guidance is available to ensure that legal trade is sustainable and beneficial to the poor. Sustainable trade often depends on poor and rural communities conserving their own resources at the local level. To see what that looks like, the International Trade Center (ITC) recently examined how people in Southeast Asia sustainably manage the CITES-listed python trade. In Vietnam, an estimated 1,000 households farm and trade pythons, and python harvesting in Malaysia provides incomes for low-skilled, low-income workers during periods when other employment opportunities are either out of season, or simply scarce because of larger economic factors.The biggest threats to the legal wildlife trade are poaching, smuggling, improper trade permitting, and animal abuse, all of which must be addressed by regulators and rural community stakeholders at the local level. Fortunately, rural communities are already in the best position to protect wildlife, so long as they are motivated to do so. In the right circumstances, a virtuous cycle, whereby local producers have a direct interest in protecting wildlife (because they are benefiting from its legal trade) is the best - and sometimes the only - long-term solution to the problem of sustainability.Q.Nature has been described as the GDP of the poor.From the above it can be implied that:1) Nature is the only source of income for the poor.2) Indigenous people see no harm in illegal wildlife trade.3) Conservation of nature is not a priority for the poor.4) Legal trade is sustainable and beneficial to the poor.a)1b)2c)3d)4Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.Poor and rural people around the world rely on plants and animals for shelter, food, income, and medicine. In fact, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal on sustainable ecosystems acknowledges many developing societies close relationship with nature when it calls for increased capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities. But how is this to be achieved?The 1975 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) provides a viable framework for reducing poverty while also conserving nature. It regulates the harvesting and exchange of more than 35,000 wildlife species across a range of locales. Nature has been described as the GDP of the poor. The CITES framework, combined with strong national conservation policies, can simultaneously protect wild species and benefit poor, rural, and indigenous people, by encouraging countries and communities to adopt sound environmental management plans.For example, under CITES, Andes communities shear the vicuna for its fine wool, which they sell to the luxury fashion industry in other parts of the world. Cameroonians collect African cherry bark for export to European pharmaceuticalcompanies, and people on the Tibetan Plateau in Bhutan make a living selling caterpillar fungus to the traditional-medicine industry. However, outside of CITES, limited guidance is available to ensure that legal trade is sustainable and beneficial to the poor. Sustainable trade often depends on poor and rural communities conserving their own resources at the local level. To see what that looks like, the International Trade Center (ITC) recently examined how people in Southeast Asia sustainably manage the CITES-listed python trade. In Vietnam, an estimated 1,000 households farm and trade pythons, and python harvesting in Malaysia provides incomes for low-skilled, low-income workers during periods when other employment opportunities are either out of season, or simply scarce because of larger economic factors.The biggest threats to the legal wildlife trade are poaching, smuggling, improper trade permitting, and animal abuse, all of which must be addressed by regulators and rural community stakeholders at the local level. Fortunately, rural communities are already in the best position to protect wildlife, so long as they are motivated to do so. In the right circumstances, a virtuous cycle, whereby local producers have a direct interest in protecting wildlife (because they are benefiting from its legal trade) is the best - and sometimes the only - long-term solution to the problem of sustainability.Q.Nature has been described as the GDP of the poor.From the above it can be implied that:1) Nature is the only source of income for the poor.2) Indigenous people see no harm in illegal wildlife trade.3) Conservation of nature is not a priority for the poor.4) Legal trade is sustainable and beneficial to the poor.a)1b)2c)3d)4Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.Poor and rural people around the world rely on plants and animals for shelter, food, income, and medicine. In fact, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal on sustainable ecosystems acknowledges many developing societies close relationship with nature when it calls for increased capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities. But how is this to be achieved?The 1975 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) provides a viable framework for reducing poverty while also conserving nature. It regulates the harvesting and exchange of more than 35,000 wildlife species across a range of locales. Nature has been described as the GDP of the poor. The CITES framework, combined with strong national conservation policies, can simultaneously protect wild species and benefit poor, rural, and indigenous people, by encouraging countries and communities to adopt sound environmental management plans.For example, under CITES, Andes communities shear the vicuna for its fine wool, which they sell to the luxury fashion industry in other parts of the world. Cameroonians collect African cherry bark for export to European pharmaceuticalcompanies, and people on the Tibetan Plateau in Bhutan make a living selling caterpillar fungus to the traditional-medicine industry. However, outside of CITES, limited guidance is available to ensure that legal trade is sustainable and beneficial to the poor. Sustainable trade often depends on poor and rural communities conserving their own resources at the local level. To see what that looks like, the International Trade Center (ITC) recently examined how people in Southeast Asia sustainably manage the CITES-listed python trade. In Vietnam, an estimated 1,000 households farm and trade pythons, and python harvesting in Malaysia provides incomes for low-skilled, low-income workers during periods when other employment opportunities are either out of season, or simply scarce because of larger economic factors.The biggest threats to the legal wildlife trade are poaching, smuggling, improper trade permitting, and animal abuse, all of which must be addressed by regulators and rural community stakeholders at the local level. Fortunately, rural communities are already in the best position to protect wildlife, so long as they are motivated to do so. In the right circumstances, a virtuous cycle, whereby local producers have a direct interest in protecting wildlife (because they are benefiting from its legal trade) is the best - and sometimes the only - long-term solution to the problem of sustainability.Q.Nature has been described as the GDP of the poor.From the above it can be implied that:1) Nature is the only source of income for the poor.2) Indigenous people see no harm in illegal wildlife trade.3) Conservation of nature is not a priority for the poor.4) Legal trade is sustainable and beneficial to the poor.a)1b)2c)3d)4Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.Poor and rural people around the world rely on plants and animals for shelter, food, income, and medicine. In fact, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal on sustainable ecosystems acknowledges many developing societies close relationship with nature when it calls for increased capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities. But how is this to be achieved?The 1975 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) provides a viable framework for reducing poverty while also conserving nature. It regulates the harvesting and exchange of more than 35,000 wildlife species across a range of locales. Nature has been described as the GDP of the poor. The CITES framework, combined with strong national conservation policies, can simultaneously protect wild species and benefit poor, rural, and indigenous people, by encouraging countries and communities to adopt sound environmental management plans.For example, under CITES, Andes communities shear the vicuna for its fine wool, which they sell to the luxury fashion industry in other parts of the world. Cameroonians collect African cherry bark for export to European pharmaceuticalcompanies, and people on the Tibetan Plateau in Bhutan make a living selling caterpillar fungus to the traditional-medicine industry. However, outside of CITES, limited guidance is available to ensure that legal trade is sustainable and beneficial to the poor. Sustainable trade often depends on poor and rural communities conserving their own resources at the local level. To see what that looks like, the International Trade Center (ITC) recently examined how people in Southeast Asia sustainably manage the CITES-listed python trade. In Vietnam, an estimated 1,000 households farm and trade pythons, and python harvesting in Malaysia provides incomes for low-skilled, low-income workers during periods when other employment opportunities are either out of season, or simply scarce because of larger economic factors.The biggest threats to the legal wildlife trade are poaching, smuggling, improper trade permitting, and animal abuse, all of which must be addressed by regulators and rural community stakeholders at the local level. Fortunately, rural communities are already in the best position to protect wildlife, so long as they are motivated to do so. In the right circumstances, a virtuous cycle, whereby local producers have a direct interest in protecting wildlife (because they are benefiting from its legal trade) is the best - and sometimes the only - long-term solution to the problem of sustainability.Q.Nature has been described as the GDP of the poor.From the above it can be implied that:1) Nature is the only source of income for the poor.2) Indigenous people see no harm in illegal wildlife trade.3) Conservation of nature is not a priority for the poor.4) Legal trade is sustainable and beneficial to the poor.a)1b)2c)3d)4Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.Poor and rural people around the world rely on plants and animals for shelter, food, income, and medicine. In fact, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal on sustainable ecosystems acknowledges many developing societies close relationship with nature when it calls for increased capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities. But how is this to be achieved?The 1975 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) provides a viable framework for reducing poverty while also conserving nature. It regulates the harvesting and exchange of more than 35,000 wildlife species across a range of locales. Nature has been described as the GDP of the poor. The CITES framework, combined with strong national conservation policies, can simultaneously protect wild species and benefit poor, rural, and indigenous people, by encouraging countries and communities to adopt sound environmental management plans.For example, under CITES, Andes communities shear the vicuna for its fine wool, which they sell to the luxury fashion industry in other parts of the world. Cameroonians collect African cherry bark for export to European pharmaceuticalcompanies, and people on the Tibetan Plateau in Bhutan make a living selling caterpillar fungus to the traditional-medicine industry. However, outside of CITES, limited guidance is available to ensure that legal trade is sustainable and beneficial to the poor. Sustainable trade often depends on poor and rural communities conserving their own resources at the local level. To see what that looks like, the International Trade Center (ITC) recently examined how people in Southeast Asia sustainably manage the CITES-listed python trade. In Vietnam, an estimated 1,000 households farm and trade pythons, and python harvesting in Malaysia provides incomes for low-skilled, low-income workers during periods when other employment opportunities are either out of season, or simply scarce because of larger economic factors.The biggest threats to the legal wildlife trade are poaching, smuggling, improper trade permitting, and animal abuse, all of which must be addressed by regulators and rural community stakeholders at the local level. Fortunately, rural communities are already in the best position to protect wildlife, so long as they are motivated to do so. In the right circumstances, a virtuous cycle, whereby local producers have a direct interest in protecting wildlife (because they are benefiting from its legal trade) is the best - and sometimes the only - long-term solution to the problem of sustainability.Q.Nature has been described as the GDP of the poor.From the above it can be implied that:1) Nature is the only source of income for the poor.2) Indigenous people see no harm in illegal wildlife trade.3) Conservation of nature is not a priority for the poor.4) Legal trade is sustainable and beneficial to the poor.a)1b)2c)3d)4Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.Poor and rural people around the world rely on plants and animals for shelter, food, income, and medicine. In fact, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal on sustainable ecosystems acknowledges many developing societies close relationship with nature when it calls for increased capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities. But how is this to be achieved?The 1975 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) provides a viable framework for reducing poverty while also conserving nature. It regulates the harvesting and exchange of more than 35,000 wildlife species across a range of locales. Nature has been described as the GDP of the poor. The CITES framework, combined with strong national conservation policies, can simultaneously protect wild species and benefit poor, rural, and indigenous people, by encouraging countries and communities to adopt sound environmental management plans.For example, under CITES, Andes communities shear the vicuna for its fine wool, which they sell to the luxury fashion industry in other parts of the world. Cameroonians collect African cherry bark for export to European pharmaceuticalcompanies, and people on the Tibetan Plateau in Bhutan make a living selling caterpillar fungus to the traditional-medicine industry. However, outside of CITES, limited guidance is available to ensure that legal trade is sustainable and beneficial to the poor. Sustainable trade often depends on poor and rural communities conserving their own resources at the local level. To see what that looks like, the International Trade Center (ITC) recently examined how people in Southeast Asia sustainably manage the CITES-listed python trade. In Vietnam, an estimated 1,000 households farm and trade pythons, and python harvesting in Malaysia provides incomes for low-skilled, low-income workers during periods when other employment opportunities are either out of season, or simply scarce because of larger economic factors.The biggest threats to the legal wildlife trade are poaching, smuggling, improper trade permitting, and animal abuse, all of which must be addressed by regulators and rural community stakeholders at the local level. Fortunately, rural communities are already in the best position to protect wildlife, so long as they are motivated to do so. In the right circumstances, a virtuous cycle, whereby local producers have a direct interest in protecting wildlife (because they are benefiting from its legal trade) is the best - and sometimes the only - long-term solution to the problem of sustainability.Q.Nature has been described as the GDP of the poor.From the above it can be implied that:1) Nature is the only source of income for the poor.2) Indigenous people see no harm in illegal wildlife trade.3) Conservation of nature is not a priority for the poor.4) Legal trade is sustainable and beneficial to the poor.a)1b)2c)3d)4Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.Poor and rural people around the world rely on plants and animals for shelter, food, income, and medicine. In fact, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal on sustainable ecosystems acknowledges many developing societies close relationship with nature when it calls for increased capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities. But how is this to be achieved?The 1975 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) provides a viable framework for reducing poverty while also conserving nature. It regulates the harvesting and exchange of more than 35,000 wildlife species across a range of locales. Nature has been described as the GDP of the poor. The CITES framework, combined with strong national conservation policies, can simultaneously protect wild species and benefit poor, rural, and indigenous people, by encouraging countries and communities to adopt sound environmental management plans.For example, under CITES, Andes communities shear the vicuna for its fine wool, which they sell to the luxury fashion industry in other parts of the world. Cameroonians collect African cherry bark for export to European pharmaceuticalcompanies, and people on the Tibetan Plateau in Bhutan make a living selling caterpillar fungus to the traditional-medicine industry. However, outside of CITES, limited guidance is available to ensure that legal trade is sustainable and beneficial to the poor. Sustainable trade often depends on poor and rural communities conserving their own resources at the local level. To see what that looks like, the International Trade Center (ITC) recently examined how people in Southeast Asia sustainably manage the CITES-listed python trade. In Vietnam, an estimated 1,000 households farm and trade pythons, and python harvesting in Malaysia provides incomes for low-skilled, low-income workers during periods when other employment opportunities are either out of season, or simply scarce because of larger economic factors.The biggest threats to the legal wildlife trade are poaching, smuggling, improper trade permitting, and animal abuse, all of which must be addressed by regulators and rural community stakeholders at the local level. Fortunately, rural communities are already in the best position to protect wildlife, so long as they are motivated to do so. In the right circumstances, a virtuous cycle, whereby local producers have a direct interest in protecting wildlife (because they are benefiting from its legal trade) is the best - and sometimes the only - long-term solution to the problem of sustainability.Q.Nature has been described as the GDP of the poor.From the above it can be implied that:1) Nature is the only source of income for the poor.2) Indigenous people see no harm in illegal wildlife trade.3) Conservation of nature is not a priority for the poor.4) Legal trade is sustainable and beneficial to the poor.a)1b)2c)3d)4Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.