Questões de Concurso Público IBAMA 2025 para Analista Ambiental - Tema 1: Proteção, Licenciamento, Monitoramento e Qualidade Ambiental
Foram encontradas 5 questões
Ano: 2025
Banca:
CESPE / CEBRASPE
Órgão:
IBAMA
Provas:
CESPE / CEBRASPE - 2025 - IBAMA - Analista Ambiental - Tema 1: Proteção, Licenciamento, Monitoramento e Qualidade Ambiental
|
CESPE / CEBRASPE - 2025 - IBAMA - Analista Ambiental - Tema 2: Manejo, Conservação e Reabilitação da Fauna Silvestre |
Q3299211
Inglês
Texto associado
In the 1980s, plant genetic resources were considered
under international law to be a common heritage of mankind, and
were therefore classified as goods that cannot be owned.
However, this status was strongly rejected by many emerging
countries because it gave pharmaceutical and seed companies
(mostly from rich countries) free access to their genetic resources
without being required in any way to redistribute a share of their
profits.
These countries scored a victory with the signing of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992 and the
TRIPS agreement in 1995. Genetic resources now come under
the control of sovereign countries, and some property rights can
be recognized to the indigenous communities on the resources
that they have been conserving from generation to generation.
States are now required to organize these “collective intellectual
property rights” in such a way that any local resource conserved
in this manner will generate dividends for these populations when
used by multinational firms.
The now well-known concept of Access to Genetic
Resources and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) emerged in the second half
of the 1990s. Their aim was to organize a biological diversity
marketplace capable of enhancing the value of the genetic
resources of countries of the South, which cannot refuse access to
these resources. In addition, these countries can now claim a
share of the profits that may result from their use.
In short, the change in the status of genetic resources from
common heritage of mankind to a good that can be owned under
national sovereignty took place in the early 1990s at the request
of countries of the South and to their benefit, and the ABS
mechanism is a fine example of intellectual property rights set up
in the interest of the people of these countries.
In a general sense, this analysis is fairly accurate and
could constitute an argument to be used against those who are of
the opinion that the spread of intellectual property rights is an
obstacle to the development of the South. However, the issue
today is whether the South gained anything by playing this card.
In answering this question, it is important to more clearly
emphasize the deep connection—often overlooked—between the
conservation of genetic resources and their practical use.
Internet:<https://shs.cairn.info/journal> (adapted).
Based on the preceding text, judge the following item.
According to the text, the ABS system was created to prevent multinational companies from using the genetic resources of countries of the South.
Ano: 2025
Banca:
CESPE / CEBRASPE
Órgão:
IBAMA
Provas:
CESPE / CEBRASPE - 2025 - IBAMA - Analista Ambiental - Tema 1: Proteção, Licenciamento, Monitoramento e Qualidade Ambiental
|
CESPE / CEBRASPE - 2025 - IBAMA - Analista Ambiental - Tema 2: Manejo, Conservação e Reabilitação da Fauna Silvestre |
Q3299212
Inglês
Texto associado
In the 1980s, plant genetic resources were considered
under international law to be a common heritage of mankind, and
were therefore classified as goods that cannot be owned.
However, this status was strongly rejected by many emerging
countries because it gave pharmaceutical and seed companies
(mostly from rich countries) free access to their genetic resources
without being required in any way to redistribute a share of their
profits.
These countries scored a victory with the signing of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992 and the
TRIPS agreement in 1995. Genetic resources now come under
the control of sovereign countries, and some property rights can
be recognized to the indigenous communities on the resources
that they have been conserving from generation to generation.
States are now required to organize these “collective intellectual
property rights” in such a way that any local resource conserved
in this manner will generate dividends for these populations when
used by multinational firms.
The now well-known concept of Access to Genetic
Resources and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) emerged in the second half
of the 1990s. Their aim was to organize a biological diversity
marketplace capable of enhancing the value of the genetic
resources of countries of the South, which cannot refuse access to
these resources. In addition, these countries can now claim a
share of the profits that may result from their use.
In short, the change in the status of genetic resources from
common heritage of mankind to a good that can be owned under
national sovereignty took place in the early 1990s at the request
of countries of the South and to their benefit, and the ABS
mechanism is a fine example of intellectual property rights set up
in the interest of the people of these countries.
In a general sense, this analysis is fairly accurate and
could constitute an argument to be used against those who are of
the opinion that the spread of intellectual property rights is an
obstacle to the development of the South. However, the issue
today is whether the South gained anything by playing this card.
In answering this question, it is important to more clearly
emphasize the deep connection—often overlooked—between the
conservation of genetic resources and their practical use.
Internet:<https://shs.cairn.info/journal> (adapted).
Based on the preceding text, judge the following item.
In the 1980s, genetic resources were regarded as private property under international law, allowing multinational corporations to control them freely.
Ano: 2025
Banca:
CESPE / CEBRASPE
Órgão:
IBAMA
Provas:
CESPE / CEBRASPE - 2025 - IBAMA - Analista Ambiental - Tema 1: Proteção, Licenciamento, Monitoramento e Qualidade Ambiental
|
CESPE / CEBRASPE - 2025 - IBAMA - Analista Ambiental - Tema 2: Manejo, Conservação e Reabilitação da Fauna Silvestre |
Q3299213
Inglês
Texto associado
In the 1980s, plant genetic resources were considered
under international law to be a common heritage of mankind, and
were therefore classified as goods that cannot be owned.
However, this status was strongly rejected by many emerging
countries because it gave pharmaceutical and seed companies
(mostly from rich countries) free access to their genetic resources
without being required in any way to redistribute a share of their
profits.
These countries scored a victory with the signing of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992 and the
TRIPS agreement in 1995. Genetic resources now come under
the control of sovereign countries, and some property rights can
be recognized to the indigenous communities on the resources
that they have been conserving from generation to generation.
States are now required to organize these “collective intellectual
property rights” in such a way that any local resource conserved
in this manner will generate dividends for these populations when
used by multinational firms.
The now well-known concept of Access to Genetic
Resources and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) emerged in the second half
of the 1990s. Their aim was to organize a biological diversity
marketplace capable of enhancing the value of the genetic
resources of countries of the South, which cannot refuse access to
these resources. In addition, these countries can now claim a
share of the profits that may result from their use.
In short, the change in the status of genetic resources from
common heritage of mankind to a good that can be owned under
national sovereignty took place in the early 1990s at the request
of countries of the South and to their benefit, and the ABS
mechanism is a fine example of intellectual property rights set up
in the interest of the people of these countries.
In a general sense, this analysis is fairly accurate and
could constitute an argument to be used against those who are of
the opinion that the spread of intellectual property rights is an
obstacle to the development of the South. However, the issue
today is whether the South gained anything by playing this card.
In answering this question, it is important to more clearly
emphasize the deep connection—often overlooked—between the
conservation of genetic resources and their practical use.
Internet:<https://shs.cairn.info/journal> (adapted).
Based on the preceding text, judge the following item.
The shift from the perception of genetic resources as mankind’s common heritage to its condition of property of national sovereignty was demanded by countries of the South.
Ano: 2025
Banca:
CESPE / CEBRASPE
Órgão:
IBAMA
Provas:
CESPE / CEBRASPE - 2025 - IBAMA - Analista Ambiental - Tema 1: Proteção, Licenciamento, Monitoramento e Qualidade Ambiental
|
CESPE / CEBRASPE - 2025 - IBAMA - Analista Ambiental - Tema 2: Manejo, Conservação e Reabilitação da Fauna Silvestre |
Q3299214
Inglês
Texto associado
In the 1980s, plant genetic resources were considered
under international law to be a common heritage of mankind, and
were therefore classified as goods that cannot be owned.
However, this status was strongly rejected by many emerging
countries because it gave pharmaceutical and seed companies
(mostly from rich countries) free access to their genetic resources
without being required in any way to redistribute a share of their
profits.
These countries scored a victory with the signing of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992 and the
TRIPS agreement in 1995. Genetic resources now come under
the control of sovereign countries, and some property rights can
be recognized to the indigenous communities on the resources
that they have been conserving from generation to generation.
States are now required to organize these “collective intellectual
property rights” in such a way that any local resource conserved
in this manner will generate dividends for these populations when
used by multinational firms.
The now well-known concept of Access to Genetic
Resources and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) emerged in the second half
of the 1990s. Their aim was to organize a biological diversity
marketplace capable of enhancing the value of the genetic
resources of countries of the South, which cannot refuse access to
these resources. In addition, these countries can now claim a
share of the profits that may result from their use.
In short, the change in the status of genetic resources from
common heritage of mankind to a good that can be owned under
national sovereignty took place in the early 1990s at the request
of countries of the South and to their benefit, and the ABS
mechanism is a fine example of intellectual property rights set up
in the interest of the people of these countries.
In a general sense, this analysis is fairly accurate and
could constitute an argument to be used against those who are of
the opinion that the spread of intellectual property rights is an
obstacle to the development of the South. However, the issue
today is whether the South gained anything by playing this card.
In answering this question, it is important to more clearly
emphasize the deep connection—often overlooked—between the
conservation of genetic resources and their practical use.
Internet:<https://shs.cairn.info/journal> (adapted).
Based on the preceding text, judge the following item.
The text argues that the spread of intellectual property rights has clearly benefited the countries of the South, proving that it is not an obstacle to their development.
Ano: 2025
Banca:
CESPE / CEBRASPE
Órgão:
IBAMA
Provas:
CESPE / CEBRASPE - 2025 - IBAMA - Analista Ambiental - Tema 1: Proteção, Licenciamento, Monitoramento e Qualidade Ambiental
|
CESPE / CEBRASPE - 2025 - IBAMA - Analista Ambiental - Tema 2: Manejo, Conservação e Reabilitação da Fauna Silvestre |
Q3299215
Inglês
Texto associado
In the 1980s, plant genetic resources were considered
under international law to be a common heritage of mankind, and
were therefore classified as goods that cannot be owned.
However, this status was strongly rejected by many emerging
countries because it gave pharmaceutical and seed companies
(mostly from rich countries) free access to their genetic resources
without being required in any way to redistribute a share of their
profits.
These countries scored a victory with the signing of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992 and the
TRIPS agreement in 1995. Genetic resources now come under
the control of sovereign countries, and some property rights can
be recognized to the indigenous communities on the resources
that they have been conserving from generation to generation.
States are now required to organize these “collective intellectual
property rights” in such a way that any local resource conserved
in this manner will generate dividends for these populations when
used by multinational firms.
The now well-known concept of Access to Genetic
Resources and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) emerged in the second half
of the 1990s. Their aim was to organize a biological diversity
marketplace capable of enhancing the value of the genetic
resources of countries of the South, which cannot refuse access to
these resources. In addition, these countries can now claim a
share of the profits that may result from their use.
In short, the change in the status of genetic resources from
common heritage of mankind to a good that can be owned under
national sovereignty took place in the early 1990s at the request
of countries of the South and to their benefit, and the ABS
mechanism is a fine example of intellectual property rights set up
in the interest of the people of these countries.
In a general sense, this analysis is fairly accurate and
could constitute an argument to be used against those who are of
the opinion that the spread of intellectual property rights is an
obstacle to the development of the South. However, the issue
today is whether the South gained anything by playing this card.
In answering this question, it is important to more clearly
emphasize the deep connection—often overlooked—between the
conservation of genetic resources and their practical use.
Internet:<https://shs.cairn.info/journal> (adapted).
Based on the preceding text, judge the following item.
The word “However”, in the second sentence of the last paragraph, can be correctly replaced with Nevertheless, without changing the original meaning of the fragment.
Conheça nossos planos