UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

In implementing the Kunming–Montreal Framework, parties have converged on the need to mobilise about USD 200 billion annually for biodiversity by 2030. A part of this is to come from international flows to developing countries, with commitments to scale support from roughly USD 20 billion a year by 2025 to around USD 30 billion by 2030. This level of finance is considered necessary to meet targets such as the “30×30” goal and restoration of degraded ecosystems. The figure also reflects efforts to integrate biodiversity into broader public and private financial systems. (AP News)

Option A:
This amount is too low and does not reflect the scale of ambition in the current biodiversity finance discussions. It understates what is considered necessary for implementing global targets, especially in developing countries.

Option B:
This option exaggerates the focus on high-income countries as recipients and misstates the scale of funding. In reality, a substantial share of new resources is intended for developing countries where biodiversity is richest and capacity gaps are larger.

Option C:
Linking a figure of USD 100 billion solely to climate projects confuses biodiversity finance with climate finance under the UNFCCC. Although there are overlaps, the Kunming–Montreal Framework requires dedicated biodiversity resources, not just climate-labelled funding.

Option D:
This option is correct because it matches the order of magnitude and structure of the finance package discussed in recent COP16-related negotiations. It notes both the overall annual target (around USD 200 billion) and the specific rising commitments to developing countries, which are central for equity.

The Kunming–Montreal Framework includes a headline target to safeguard at least 30% of land and sea by 2030. This is meant to be done in a way that is representative of different ecosystems and connected to allow species movement and ecological processes. The target is framed as part of a broader effort to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. It has become a rallying point in global conservation discourse, often referred to simply as “30×30”. (Convention on Biological Diversity)

Option A:
This option correctly reflects both the percentage and the deadline, as well as the idea that areas should be ecologically representative and well connected. It aligns with official text and public communication on the Global Biodiversity Framework, so it is the most accurate choice.

Option B:
Population-reduction schemes of this kind are neither part of the framework nor ethically or politically acceptable in global agreements. Linking “30×30” to population control confuses biodiversity policy with unrelated demographic ideas.

Option C:
Budgetary allocation targets are important but the framework does not set a universal rule that 30% of all national budgets must go to protected areas. This option exaggerates financial commitments and mislabels the specific “30×30” phrase.

Option D:
Large-scale tree planting can support biodiversity but “30×30” is not defined as planting 30 billion trees in 30 countries. It focuses instead on protection and restoration of diverse ecosystems on land and sea, not just tree numbers.

The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework includes 23 targets, one of which calls for conserving at least 30% of land, inland waters and marine areas by 2030. This “30×30” target stresses not just numerical area but also ecological representation and connectivity, so that protected and conserved areas form coherent networks. It aims to halt and reverse biodiversity loss while respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities. Thus, the option that refers to conserving 30% of terrestrial and marine areas in an effective, representative and well-connected way correctly explains the 30×30 goal. (Convention on Biological Diversity)

Option A:
Option A is correct because it reflects both the percentage figure and the requirement that conserved areas be ecologically representative and connected, which are central elements of Target 3 in the framework. It recognises that quality and placement of conservation areas matter as much as quantity for safeguarding species and ecosystem functions. This aligns with official texts and guidance on implementing 30×30.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect; the framework does not contain population-reduction targets of this kind, and such an approach would raise serious ethical and human-rights concerns. Biodiversity policy focuses on changing production, consumption and land-use patterns rather than demographic engineering.

Option C:
Option C is wrong because the framework does not prescribe a uniform budget share for all countries or limit spending to forestry. Financing arrangements are more flexible and cover a broad range of conservation and restoration activities across sectors.

Option D:
Option D misinterprets the target by focusing only on tree-planting numbers and ignoring ecosystem diversity and appropriateness. The framework emphasises protecting and restoring varied ecosystems, including grasslands, wetlands and oceans, not simply planting trees anywhere.