Read the passage below carefully and answer the question that follows:
When the coastal fishing communities of the Cross River estuary established community-managed mangrove sanctuaries to combat severe coastline erosion, initial resistance came primarily from local fuelwood gatherers whose daily livelihoods depended on harvesting mangrove timber. To address this economic rift, environmental conservation planners integrated a carbon-credit revenue-sharing model. This framework directed a fixed percentage of international offset funds directly into a micro-credit fund for female gatherers, enabling them to transition into sustainable eco-friendly aquaculture and poultry farming ventures.
Within three years of implementation, satellite monitoring confirmed a twenty percent recovery in mangrove canopy density, while local fish nursery yields in the protected tidal channels rose significantly, boosting municipal fish markets. However, despite these documented ecological and financial gains for participants, several local youth associations expressed growing dissatisfaction with the initiative. They argued that the thirty-year carbon offset agreements locked community lands into rigid environmental conservation protocols without addressing immediate, pressing municipal infrastructure deficits, such as paved access roads, reliable electricity, or clean piped drinking water.
Based on the passage, what can be logically inferred about the mangrove conservation initiative?
- AThe female fuelwood gatherers suffered financial ruin because mangrove timber harvesting was completely banned.
- The initiative prioritized targeted ecological restoration and targeted enterprise support over broad public infrastructure development.Answer
- CThe local youth associations opposed the project primarily because they wanted to resume harvesting mangrove timber for fuelwood.
- DThe carbon-credit model failed to produce any measurable ecological improvements in the Cross River estuary.