Which region experienced the most severe land degradation?a)Sub-Saharan Africab)Latin America and the Caribbeanc)Western and Southern Asiad)Eastern and Central AsiaCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses Banking ... Exam Banking ... Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

Banking Exams Exam > Banking Exams Questions > Which region experienced the most severe land...

Which region experienced the most severe land degradation?

a)
Sub-Saharan Africa
b)
Latin America and the Caribbean
c)
Western and Southern Asia
d)
Eastern and Central Asia

Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Which region experienced the most severe land degradation?a)Sub-Sahara...

Eastern and Central Asia experienced the most severe land degradation, with around 20% of their total land area affected. This region had a higher rate of land degradation than other regions.

View all questions of this test

Most Upvoted Answer

Which region experienced the most severe land degradation?a)Sub-Sahara...

Eastern and Central Asia experienced the most severe land degradation. This region includes countries such as China, Mongolia, and parts of Russia. There are several factors that contribute to the severe land degradation in this region.

1. Expansion of agriculture: The rapid expansion of agriculture in Eastern and Central Asia has led to the conversion of natural ecosystems, such as forests and grasslands, into farmland. This has resulted in deforestation, soil erosion, and loss of biodiversity.

2. Overgrazing: The region is known for its extensive pastoral systems, where livestock is a major source of livelihood. Overgrazing by livestock has caused degradation of grasslands, leading to soil erosion and desertification.

3. Water scarcity: Eastern and Central Asia is home to several arid and semi-arid regions, where water scarcity is a major challenge. Unsustainable water management practices, such as excessive groundwater extraction and inefficient irrigation techniques, have contributed to land degradation.

4. Mining activities: The region is rich in mineral resources, and mining activities have intensified in recent decades. Mining operations often involve the removal of vegetation, excavation of land, and release of toxic substances, leading to land degradation.

5. Urbanization and infrastructure development: Rapid urbanization and infrastructure development in Eastern and Central Asia have resulted in the conversion of agricultural and natural lands into built-up areas. This has caused loss of fertile soil and fragmentation of ecosystems.

6. Climate change: The region is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, including increased frequency and intensity of droughts, floods, and storms. These extreme weather events exacerbate land degradation by causing soil erosion, landslides, and loss of vegetation.

Overall, the combination of unsustainable agricultural practices, overgrazing, water scarcity, mining activities, urbanization, and climate change has made Eastern and Central Asia the region with the most severe land degradation. Addressing these issues requires implementing sustainable land management practices, promoting efficient water use, conserving natural ecosystems, and mitigating climate change impacts.

Answered by Bank Exams India · View profile

Answer this doubt

Explore Courses for Banking Exams exam

Similar Banking Exams Doubts

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in underlineto help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Yet the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can’t explain Africa’s prolonged economic crisis. The claim that Africa’s corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade, I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa, such as Ghana, Malawi, Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to haveextensivecorruption, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth.What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example, Africa is burdened with malaria-like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle.Anothermythis that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world’s poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neil ex-pressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa: "We’ve spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it". O’Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had beensquandered. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as "the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have anobligationto feed the hungry". Yet how does the U.S. fulfil its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than $1 per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households.From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub-Saharan African in 2002. Of that modest amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa’s debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the "money down the drain" argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it’s worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid. administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents.The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically up to 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course. because not one in a million U.S. citizens even know of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation’s generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.Q. Choose the word/ group of words which is mostOPPOSITEin meaning of the word given in underlineas used in the passage.EXTENSIVE

View answer

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in underlineto help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Yet the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can’t explain Africa’s prolonged economic crisis. The claim that Africa’s corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade, I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa, such as Ghana, Malawi, Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to haveextensivecorruption, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth.What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example, Africa is burdened with malaria-like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle.Anothermythis that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world’s poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neil ex-pressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa: "We’ve spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it". O’Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had beensquandered. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as "the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have anobligationto feed the hungry". Yet how does the U.S. fulfil its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than $1 per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households.From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub-Saharan African in 2002. Of that modest amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa’s debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the "money down the drain" argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it’s worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid. administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents.The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically up to 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course. because not one in a million U.S. citizens even know of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation’s generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.Q. According to the Westerners the solution to eradicate poverty of African nations lies in

View answer

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in underlineto help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Yet the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can’t explain Africa’s prolonged economic crisis. The claim that Africa’s corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade, I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa, such as Ghana, Malawi, Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to haveextensivecorruption, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth.What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example, Africa is burdened with malaria-like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle.Anothermythis that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world’s poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neil ex-pressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa: "We’ve spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it". O’Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had beensquandered. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as "the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have anobligationto feed the hungry". Yet how does the U.S. fulfil its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than $1 per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households.From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub-Saharan African in 2002. Of that modest amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa’s debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the "money down the drain" argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it’s worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid. administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents.The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically up to 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course. because not one in a million U.S. citizens even know of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation’s generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.Q. The author has mentioned Ghana as a country with

View answer

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in underlineto help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Yet the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can’t explain Africa’s prolonged economic crisis. The claim that Africa’s corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade, I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa, such as Ghana, Malawi, Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to haveextensivecorruption, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth.What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example, Africa is burdened with malaria-like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle.Anothermythis that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world’s poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neil ex-pressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa: "We’ve spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it". O’Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had beensquandered. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as "the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have anobligationto feed the hungry". Yet how does the U.S. fulfil its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than $1 per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households.From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub-Saharan African in 2002. Of that modest amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa’s debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the "money down the drain" argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it’s worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid. administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents.The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically up to 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course. because not one in a million U.S. citizens even know of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation’s generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.Q. Choose the word/ group of words which is mostOPPOSITEin meaning of the word given in underlineas used in the passage.MYTH

View answer

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in underlineto help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Yet the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can’t explain Africa’s prolonged economic crisis. The claim that Africa’s corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade, I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa, such as Ghana, Malawi, Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to haveextensivecorruption, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth.What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example, Africa is burdened with malaria-like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle.Anothermythis that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world’s poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neil ex-pressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa: "We’ve spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it". O’Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had beensquandered. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as "the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have anobligationto feed the hungry". Yet how does the U.S. fulfil its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than $1 per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households.From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub-Saharan African in 2002. Of that modest amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa’s debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the "money down the drain" argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it’s worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid. administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents.The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically up to 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course. because not one in a million U.S. citizens even know of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation’s generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.Q. The cases of malaria in Africa are mainly due to(

View answer

Top Courses for Banking ExamsView all

SBI PO Prelims & Mains Preparation

IBPS PO Prelims & Mains Preparation

Crash Course for Banking Exams

RBI Grade B Phase 1 Preparation

Cheatsheets for Bank Exams

Top Courses for Banking Exams

SBI PO Prelims & Mains Preparation

IBPS PO Prelims & Mains Preparation

Crash Course for Banking Exams

RBI Grade B Phase 1 Preparation

Cheatsheets for Bank Exams

View all

Question Description
Which region experienced the most severe land degradation?a)Sub-Saharan Africab)Latin America and the Caribbeanc)Western and Southern Asiad)Eastern and Central AsiaCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for Banking Exams 2025 is part of Banking Exams preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the Banking Exams exam syllabus. Information about Which region experienced the most severe land degradation?a)Sub-Saharan Africab)Latin America and the Caribbeanc)Western and Southern Asiad)Eastern and Central AsiaCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Banking Exams 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Which region experienced the most severe land degradation?a)Sub-Saharan Africab)Latin America and the Caribbeanc)Western and Southern Asiad)Eastern and Central AsiaCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Which region experienced the most severe land degradation?a)Sub-Saharan Africab)Latin America and the Caribbeanc)Western and Southern Asiad)Eastern and Central AsiaCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for Banking Exams. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Banking Exams Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Which region experienced the most severe land degradation?a)Sub-Saharan Africab)Latin America and the Caribbeanc)Western and Southern Asiad)Eastern and Central AsiaCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Which region experienced the most severe land degradation?a)Sub-Saharan Africab)Latin America and the Caribbeanc)Western and Southern Asiad)Eastern and Central AsiaCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Which region experienced the most severe land degradation?a)Sub-Saharan Africab)Latin America and the Caribbeanc)Western and Southern Asiad)Eastern and Central AsiaCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Which region experienced the most severe land degradation?a)Sub-Saharan Africab)Latin America and the Caribbeanc)Western and Southern Asiad)Eastern and Central AsiaCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Which region experienced the most severe land degradation?a)Sub-Saharan Africab)Latin America and the Caribbeanc)Western and Southern Asiad)Eastern and Central AsiaCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice Banking Exams tests.