With reference to the 'Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture (GACSA)', which of the following statements is/are correct ? 1. GACSA is an outcome of the Climate Summit held in Paris in 2015. 2. Membership of GACSA does not create any binding obligations. 3. India was instrumental in the creation of GACSA. Select the correct answer using the code given below :

Shows that COP21 was used as a launch venue for international alliances (example: International Solar Alliance was launched at COP21).

A student could check whether GACSA is listed among initiatives launched at COP21 or compare GACSA's founding date/place with COP21's date (Nov 2015).

Defines Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA), the thematic area GACSA addresses, clarifying what kinds of organizations would be relevant outcomes of climate COPs.

Use this definition to determine whether COP21 outcomes included CSA-specific institutional initiatives (like alliances) or only general agriculture references.

Notes a major agriculture-related decision (Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture) was reached at COP23 in 2017, indicating key agriculture actions occurred after COP21.

A student could infer that if substantial agriculture commitments were decided in later COPs, GACSA might instead be linked to post-2015 agriculture processes and check its founding timing accordingly.

Explains that Marrakech (COP22) advanced Paris rulebook implementation and launched the Marrakech Partnership for Global Climate Action, showing COPs often produce implementation partnerships after Paris.

A student could investigate whether GACSA belongs to these post-Paris implementation partnerships (COP22/COP23) rather than being an immediate COP21 outcome.

States the Paris Agreement entered into force in November 2016 and that many implementation details required further elaboration in subsequent COPs.

Use this to reason that organizational outcomes tied to agriculture/climate implementation may have been established after Paris, prompting a check of GACSA's founding date relative to 2015–2017.

Shows an example where an international instrument (the Rotterdam Convention) explicitly 'creates legally binding obligations' for members — establishing the pattern that some international bodies do impose binding duties.

A student could check whether GACSA's founding instrument is a convention/treaty like Rotterdam (which would suggest binding obligations) or a different type of arrangement.

Gives another clear example (Kigali Amendment) of an international agreement that is 'legally binding' once entered into force — reinforcing the distinction between binding amendments/treaties and non‑binding initiatives.

Compare whether GACSA has a ratifiable amendment or treaty text (like Kigali) versus being an initiative or alliance without treaty language.

Describes that some Earth Summit agreements are 'legally binding' (e.g., Climate Change Framework, Biodiversity), illustrating that agreements vary in legal force.

Use this rule to test whether GACSA is described in primary sources as an 'agreement' with binding commitments or as a voluntary partnership.

Describes the Global Climate Change Alliance as an initiative that 'does not intend to set up a new fund or governance structure' and works through existing channels — an example of an institutional initiative likely oriented to cooperation rather than creating novel binding obligations.

A student could examine GACSA's institutional setup and stated intent (initiative/alliance vs. treaty body) to infer whether membership likely creates legal obligations.

Defines Climate‑Smart Agriculture (CSA) as an 'approach' guiding actions — suggesting the policy area (CSA) is often framed as guidance/approach rather than a legal regime, which bears on the expectation of binding membership duties.

Compare GACSA's documents to this definition: if GACSA promotes CSA as guidance and voluntary practice, membership is more likely non‑binding.

Shows India has taken a leading/co‑founding role in at least one major climate-related international initiative (International Solar Alliance with France).

A student could use this pattern (India co-founds climate initiatives) to ask whether India similarly appears among GACSA's founding partners and then check GACSA's origin documents or founding announcements.

Reinforces that India actively launches and headquarters international climate/energy alliances (ISA headquartered in New Delhi with France).

One could contrast the list of organisations India has launched with the list of organisations that launched GACSA (e.g., identify whether India or an Indian agency is named among GACSA founders).

States broadly that 'India has been playing a leading role in promoting global engagement platforms such as the International Solar Alliance,' establishing a precedent of Indian leadership in global climate platforms.

Use this precedent to form a hypothesis that India might have been involved in creating other climate‑agriculture alliances and then verify by checking GACSA's founding records or press releases.

Defines Climate‑Smart Agriculture (CSA) and its objectives, linking the concept (the subject of GACSA) to a recognized policy approach India studies and practices.

Knowing CSA is a defined international approach, a student could look up which countries or organisations promoted or convened the first international CSA forum(s) that led to GACSA.

Gives an example of an international climate alliance (GCCA) administered by a major actor (European Commission), illustrating that such alliances are often initiated by prominent states or blocs.

A student could use this rule (alliances are typically started by identifiable lead actors) to check GACSA's originator(s) — if India is not among them, it would argue against India being instrumental.