Basel III Accord' or simply 'Basel III', often seen in the news, seeks to

Defines Basel III as banking regulations focused on capital, leverage, funding and liquidity to make the banking system more resilient.

A student could note the subject-matter (banking regulation) and use basic domain knowledge to judge that biodiversity strategy-making is outside typical Basel III objectives.

Describes Strategic Goal A: integrating biodiversity into national and local development and planning—an explicit formulation of 'national strategies' for biodiversity.

One could infer that national biodiversity strategies are driven by environmental frameworks (not financial accords) and check whether Basel III is such a framework.

States the core objectives for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and mentions institutional mechanisms for implementation.

A student can extend this to expect specialized biodiversity laws/institutions to develop national strategies, contrasting them with banking accords like Basel III.

Lists functions of the National Biodiversity Authority, including advising the central government on conservation and sustainable use—showing which bodies produce national strategies.

Use this to reason that national biodiversity strategies are within the remit of biodiversity authorities rather than international banking accords.

Shows a multiple-choice item that (incorrectly) includes 'develop national strategies for conservation of biological diversity' as an option for 'Basel-III Accord', highlighting a potential confusion of domains.

A student could treat this as an example of a distractor and combine it with the Basel III description (snippet 5) to suspect the option is wrong and verify via domain comparison.

Defines Basel III's stated aims (strengthening banks after the 2008 crisis: capital, leverage, funding, liquidity), which are financial/banking concepts not climate obligations.

A student can use this to infer Basel III is a banking-regulation framework and thus unlikely to be a climate treaty imposing emissions cuts or differentiated burdens.

Includes a multiple‑choice item listing (b) banking risk-management aims for Basel‑III and (c) a climate-related aim (reduce GHG and heavier burden on developed countries) as an alternative option, implying (c) is not the Basel‑III objective.

A student could treat the MCQ structure as evidence that (c) is presented as an incorrect distractor and combine it with [4] to rule out the climate interpretation.

Explains the international climate principle 'common but differentiated responsibilities' that underpins placing heavier burdens on developed countries in climate agreements (e.g., Kyoto Protocol).

A student could use this rule to recognize that 'placing a heavier burden on developed countries' is characteristic of climate treaties, not banking accords like Basel III.

Notes criticisms and positions around Kyoto and differentiated responsibilities — reinforces that differentiated burdens are a feature of climate policy discourse.

Combine this pattern with [4] to separate climate-policy instruments (which adopt differentiated burdens) from Basel III's banking regulatory objectives.

Describes climate-mitigation as actions to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and notes distributional aspects of emissions (developing vs developed), giving context on what measures aim to do.

A student could compare the concrete aims and tools of climate mitigation (as outlined here) with the banking tools in Basel III to test whether Basel III plausibly pursues emissions reduction.

Defines Basel III as banking guidelines introduced after the 2008 crisis to strengthen banks via capital, leverage, funding and liquidity rules.

A student could combine this with basic knowledge of institutional mandates to judge that a banking-capital accord is unlikely to be a mechanism for environmental technology transfer.

Describes earlier Basel accords (Basel I) as capital measurement systems focused on credit risk and capital adequacy for banks.

Use this pattern (Basel = banking supervision accords) to infer that 'Basel III' most likely continues in the banking/regulatory domain rather than environmental technology transfer.

Explains the Basel Convention (different use of 'Basel' name) as controlling transboundary movement of hazardous wastes, an environmental treaty.

A student could contrast the mandates: 'Basel Convention' (environmental) versus 'Basel Committee/Accords' (banking), to avoid conflating similarly named instruments and to test the claim about tech transfer.

States that developing countries seek transfer of environmentally-sound technology and finance from developed countries to meet UNFCCC commitments.

Combine this with knowledge of actual environmental treaty mechanisms to note that tech transfer is a recognized objective in environmental diplomacy, but typically tied to climate/ocean treaties rather than banking accords.

Explains that HFCs were developed to replace CFCs (they don't deplete ozone) but are potent greenhouse gases—context on refrigerant substitution.

Use this to identify the specific technical topic (refrigerant replacement) and then check which international agreements or mechanisms deal with such tech transfer (e.g., Montreal Protocol related mechanisms), not Basel III.