Land degradation and ecological restoration

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. Soil organic carbon depletion in Indian agricultural soils is well-established to result from excessive chemical fertiliser use, monoculture practices and soil erosion — all of which degrade soil structure and microbial activity, thereby reducing agricultural productivity. This is a core principle of soil science and land degradation studies. Statement 2 is correct. Agro-forestry and tree-based interventions are recognised as integrated ecological tools that simultaneously restore soil health, regulate the water cycle (an ecosystem service), provide biomass and shade, and generate livelihoods through non-timber forest produce and value chains. This is the foundational premise of landscape-scale restoration as opposed to isolated plantation drives. Statement 3 is incorrect. A well-established principle in ecological restoration science — and in frameworks such as the Bonn Challenge and India's land degradation neutrality targets — is that restoration strategies must be context-specific, responding to local ecological conditions, land-use history, community priorities and existing livelihood systems. Uniform, top-down replication across ecologically and socially diverse districts undermines restoration outcomes. The correct approach is an 'integrated landscape approach' tailored to local contexts, not a standardised blueprint.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct: the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (Target 2) sets a commitment that at least 30 per cent of degraded terrestrial, inland water, marine and coastal ecosystems must be under effective restoration by 2030. Statement 2 is incorrect: 'under restoration' means that restoration activities have been documented as ongoing — it does not imply that ecosystems have actually recovered. Recovery is a distinct outcome that may or may not result from restoration activities, and the framework itself does not equate documentation of restoration activity with ecological recovery. Statement 3 is correct: the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, declared by the UN General Assembly, spans exactly 2021–2030, aligning with the KMGBF's 2030 deadline and providing a global rallying framework for scaling up restoration ambitions within the same time horizon.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. Section 3(1)(b) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 explicitly recognises community rights 'such as fish and other products of water bodies, grazing (both settled and transhumance) and traditional seasonal resource access of nomadic or pastoralist communities.' The Act thus covers not only settled forest-dwelling communities but also nomadic and transhumant pastoral communities — a fact of direct relevance when thousands of pastoralists lack formal permits but may possess statutory entitlements under the FRA. Statement 2 is incorrect. Under the FRA's three-tier institutional framework, it is the Gram Sabha — through its constituted Forest Rights Committee (FRC) — that is the primary body for receiving and initially processing claims for forest rights. The Sub-Divisional Level Committee (SDLC) occupies the second tier: it examines the recommendations passed up by Gram Sabhas and has authority to accept, reject, or modify them. Designating the SDLC as the 'primary body' for receiving claims inverts the grassroots-first architecture the Act deliberately created to vest agency in forest-dwelling communities themselves. Statement 3 is correct. The Forest Rights Act, 2006 falls under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA), which is the nodal ministry for its implementation and monitoring. This is conceptually significant because the Act was enacted as a remedial measure to address the 'historical injustice' done to forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers — making it a tribal-rights statute, not a forest-management statute administered by the environment ministry.