UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

The Cali fund is designed as a mechanism for sharing benefits arising from the use of digital sequence information on genetic resources. Companies in sectors such as pharmaceuticals and cosmetics will contribute a small share of revenue or profits, which will then support conservation activities. A notable feature is the commitment that a substantial portion of the resources go directly to Indigenous peoples and local communities who steward biodiversity. This links economic gains from genetic information to justice and conservation goals under the Kunming–Montreal Framework. (Reuters)

Option A:
This option is incorrect because the fund is not meant to subsidise fossil fuel exploration; in fact, biodiversity summits focus on reducing harmful activities and supporting conservation. Subsidising extraction in biodiversity-rich regions would contradict the aims of the convention.

Option B:
The fund does not exist to compensate companies for conservation-related “losses”; rather, companies are contributors, not primary recipients. Framing them as beneficiaries in this way inverts the benefit-sharing principle embedded in the agreement.

Option C:
This option correctly captures that the fund is financed by users of genetic sequence information and is intended to support biodiversity conservation and communities. It highlights both the source (company contributions) and the beneficiaries (including Indigenous peoples), matching reported agreements from COP16.

Option D:
Financing relocation of all Indigenous communities away from protected areas would run counter to the recognition of Indigenous rights and their role as conservation partners. COP16 decisions instead emphasised involvement and support for these communities, not their removal.