With reference to the New York Declaration on Forests', which of the following statements are correct? 1. It was first endorsed at the United Nations Climate Summit in 2014. 2. It endorses a global timeline to end the loss of forests. 3. It is a legally binding international declaration. 4. It is endorsed by governments, big companies and indigenous communities. 5. India was one of the signatories at its inception. Select the correct answer using the code given below.

Shows that major global environmental/forest agreements and principles have historically been endorsed at large UN summits (e.g., Rio Earth Summit produced Forest Principles and Agenda 21).

A student could use this pattern to check whether the New York Declaration fits the same pattern of being launched/endorsed at a major UN summit by comparing dates and venues of such summits.

Describes the UN Forum on Forests (established via ECOSOC) and ties forest policy action to UN processes and outcomes from major conferences (Rio-related instruments).

A student could infer that major forest declarations are often linked to UN-organized processes and thus verify whether the New York Declaration was presented within a UN summit framework in 2014.

Gives an example (Poznan Summit 2008) where a UN climate meeting produced agreements/mechanisms specifically addressing forest protection.

Use this example to support the plausibility that a UN Climate Summit (e.g., one held in New York) could be the venue for a forests declaration and then check the specific 2014 summit agenda and outcomes.

Mentions a UN Secretary‑General‑hosted Climate Action Summit in New York as a venue for boosting climate ambition and accelerating implementation of UN agreements—illustrating that New York has been used for high‑level UN climate events.

A student could look up whether a UN climate summit occurred in New York in 2014 and whether its official outcomes include endorsement of the New York Declaration on Forests.

Reinforces that major environmental declarations and legally binding agreements have historically emerged from named UN conferences (dates and outcomes listed for Earth Summit).

Apply this historical pattern to ask whether the New York Declaration corresponds to a named UN conference/outcome in 2014 and then verify the specific summit records for that year.

Explicit example of an international forest instrument (the Non‑Legally Binding Instrument on All Types of Forests, 2007) that is described as non‑legally binding.

A student could use this pattern to ask whether the New York Declaration is similarly framed as an instrument/‘declaration’ rather than a treaty, and then check if it uses binding treaty language or required ratification.

Shows that Rio Earth Summit produced the Forest Principles and Agenda 21, with the Forest Principles characterised separately from legally binding treaties.

One could compare how the Forest Principles were labelled and adopted versus the New York Declaration’s format (declaration/pledge vs. treaty) to infer likely legal status.

Gives a precedent that accords/declarations emerging from major summits (Copenhagen Accord) may be explicitly non‑binding.

Use this rule of thumb—major climate/forest summit outputs are sometimes non‑binding accords—to investigate whether the New York Declaration contains binding commitments or is presented as an accord/pledge.

Mentions a 'Declaration of forest and land use' signed by countries as a collective pledge to halt/reverse forest loss, implying declarations can be political commitments rather than treaties.

A student could treat the New York Declaration as potentially similar (a political pledge) and verify by checking whether signatories made legally enforceable commitments or voluntary pledges.

Refers to the Kunming Declaration adopted by countries at CBD meetings, illustrating that 'declarations' are used as diplomatic/political instruments to create momentum rather than always creating legal obligations.

Compare the procedural context (adopted at a COP or forum) and language of the New York Declaration with Kunming to judge if it functions as a non‑binding political declaration.

Mentions a 'Declaration of forest and land use signed by more than 30 countries' and a joint initiative on forest/agriculture/commodity trade, showing that declarations on forests are commonly endorsed by governments and involve commodity-trade actors.

A student could check whether the NY Declaration follows this pattern by looking up its signatory list for countries and for participation by trade/commodity stakeholders or corporate actors.

Describes local village communities taking formal conservation actions and creating local rules to protect forests, showing that indigenous/local communities can and do endorse and lead forest-conservation measures.

Use this pattern to investigate whether indigenous or local community organizations are listed as endorsers or partners of the NY Declaration.

States that since the 1980s governments have recognised the need to involve people living near forests in conservation, indicating government endorsement and community participation are standard features of modern forest initiatives.

Compare this general rule with NY Declaration signatories to see if it names governments plus community involvement mechanisms or commitments.

Notes formal government programmes (Joint Forest Management) that recognise local communities' rights and involve them in forest management, illustrating how official policies can include community endorsement.

Apply this example to check whether the NY Declaration includes commitments or acknowledgements aimed at indigenous/local community rights or participation.

Explains international mechanisms (REDD+) route incentives to local communities who protect forests, connecting global forest pledges to indigenous/local community benefits and suggesting such declarations often include local community considerations.

Investigate whether the NY Declaration includes mechanisms or language about benefits, incentives, or roles for indigenous/local communities as REDD+-like frameworks do.