This MCQ module is based on: Environmental Movements, OPEC, UNDRIP & Exercises
TOPIC 18 OF 21
Environmental Movements, OPEC, UNDRIP & Exercises
🎓 Class 12
Social Science
CBSE
Theory
Chapter 6 — Environment and Natural Resources
⏱ ~28 min
🌐 Language: [gtranslate]
🧠 AI-Powered MCQ Assessment
▲
📝 Worksheet / Assessment
▲
This assessment will be based on: Environmental Movements, OPEC, UNDRIP & Exercises
Upload images, PDFs, or Word documents to include their content in assessment generation.
Chapter 6 · Environment and Natural Resources — Part 3: Environmental Movements, Resource Geopolitics, Indigenous Rights & All NCERT Exercises
Some of the most powerful responses to environmental destruction have come not from governments but from ordinary citizens. This Part traces the great Indian environmental movements — Chipko (1973, Uttarakhand), Narmada Bachao Andolan (Medha Patkar, since 1989), Silent Valley (1973–83 Kerala campaign), the Niyamgiri Dongria Kondh struggle in Odisha — and the worldwide pattern of forest, mineral and anti-dam movements. It examines resource geopolitics — oil, OPEC, the 1973 and 1979 oil shocks, water wars over the Nile, Tigris-Euphrates and Jordan — and ends with the indigenous peoples agenda, including India's Forest Rights Act of 2006 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) of 2007. The Part closes with all NCERT exercises with full model answers, a chapter Summary, and Key Terms.
6.10 Environmental Movements: One or Many?
So far we have looked at how governments have reacted at the international level to the challenge of environmental degradation. But some of the most significant responses have come not from governments but from groups of environmentally conscious volunteers — citizens, peasants, students, scientists, monks, women's collectives — working in different parts of the world. Some operate at the international level; most operate at the local level. NCERT calls these environmental movements? "amongst the most vibrant, diverse and powerful social movements across the globe today". They raise new ideas and long-term visions of what we should do — and what we should not do — in our individual and collective lives.
6.10.1 Three Families of Environmental Movements
NCERT classifies environmental movements into three broad families, based on the kind of resource or issue at stake.
1. Forest Movements
Movements to save forests from clearance — for plantations, dams, roads, or commercial timber. Found in Mexico, Chile, Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Africa and India.
2. Mineral Movements
Movements against the extraction of minerals — open-cast mines, deep pits, dredging — and their pollution of water and land. Common in Asia, Latin America and Australia.
3. Anti-Dam Movements
Movements against mega-dams that displace communities, drown forests, and disrupt rivers. Increasingly framed as "pro-river" rather than just "anti-dam".
🌐 Forest Movements — North vs South
What distinguishes Southern forest movements from Northern ones is that the forests of the South are still peopled: they have communities living in them. Northern forests are largely empty (or perceived as empty) — so Northern environmentalism speaks of "wilderness", "wild places where people do not live". The Southern view sees humans as part of nature, while the Northern wilderness view treats nature as something to be protected from humans through parks and reserves. This explains why so many Southern environmental movements are also movements for tribal and forest-dweller rights.
6.11 Famous Indian Environmental Movements
India has had some of the world's leading environmental movements. NCERT highlights the importance of non-violence as a shared idea across these movements — a Gandhian inheritance.
Environmental Movements Across India — A Map
6.11.1 The Chipko Movement (1973, Uttarakhand)
The Chipko Movement? began in 1973 in the Reni village of Chamoli district in what is now Uttarakhand (then part of Uttar Pradesh). Villagers — particularly women — protested against contractors who had been allotted forests for commercial felling. Their tactic was simple, brave and Gandhian: they hugged the trees ("chipko" in Hindi means "to stick, to embrace") to prevent them from being cut down. The most famous moment was the morning of 26 March 1974, when Gaura Devi and the women of Reni stood between the loggers and 2,400 trees. The movement spread across the central Himalayas and led to a 15-year ban on commercial felling in Himalayan forests above 1,000 metres.
Two great Gandhian leaders shaped Chipko: Sunderlal Bahuguna, who led long padyatras (foot-marches) and articulated the ecological argument; and Chandi Prasad Bhatt, who organised the local cooperatives and women's groups. Bahuguna later led the campaign against the Tehri Dam. Chipko's slogan — paraphrased — was: "What do the forests bear? Soil, water and pure air."
6.11.2 Narmada Bachao Andolan (Since 1989)
The Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA)? — "Save the Narmada Movement" — is among the best-known anti-dam, pro-river movements in the world. The Narmada Valley Project planned over 30 large dams (including the controversial Sardar Sarovar Dam in Gujarat), some 135 medium dams and 3,000 small dams across the Narmada River system. Critics argued that the dams would submerge vast tracts of forest and farmland, displace hundreds of thousands of tribal and farming families, and destroy the river's ecology — while the promised benefits in irrigation and power were exaggerated.
The NBA emerged in 1989 under the leadership of Medha Patkar, supported by Baba Amte, the social activist of Anandwan. The movement organised marches, dharnas, and the famous jal samadhi (water vigils) in which activists stood in the rising waters of the dam. The NBA petitioned domestic courts and the World Bank; it succeeded in getting the World Bank to withdraw its funding for the Sardar Sarovar in 1993. The Supreme Court allowed dam construction to continue with conditions in 2000. The NBA became a global icon of anti-dam, pro-river activism — its core principle, like Chipko's, was non-violence.
6.11.3 Silent Valley (1973–1983, Kerala)
In Kerala's Palakkad district lies the Silent Valley — one of the last large tracts of tropical evergreen forest in India, home to the lion-tailed macaque and many endemic species. In 1973 the Kerala State Electricity Board proposed a hydroelectric dam on the Kunthi River that would have submerged the valley. Scientists, NGOs, the writer Sugathakumari and citizen groups campaigned for a decade. In 1983 Prime Minister Indira Gandhi cancelled the project, and in 1984 Silent Valley was declared a National Park. It remains one of the few cases in India where a major industrial project was abandoned in the face of an environmental campaign.
6.11.4 Niyamgiri Hills (Odisha) — Dongria Kondh vs Vedanta
The Niyamgiri Hills in Odisha are sacred to the Dongria Kondh tribal community, who consider the hills the abode of their god, Niyam Raja. Vedanta Resources, a London-based mining company, sought to mine bauxite from the top of the hills for its alumina refinery at Lanjigarh. The Dongria Kondh resisted for years; their case became a global symbol of indigenous rights against multinational mining. In a historic ruling in 2013, the Supreme Court of India directed that the affected gram sabhas (village councils) decide the question. All twelve gram sabhas voted unanimously against mining. The project was rejected. The Niyamgiri case became the first time in India that a tribal community formally exercised its right under the Forest Rights Act of 2006 to veto an industrial project on its sacred lands.
🏛 What Unites India's Environmental Movements?
Across Chipko, Narmada Bachao, Silent Valley and Niyamgiri, two threads run consistently. Non-violence — the Gandhian inheritance — is the chosen tactic. Tribal and rural communities, often led by women, are the chief actors. NCERT specifically observes: "in anti-dam and other environmental movements in India, the most important shared idea is non-violence." This sets Indian environmentalism apart from radical Western movements that have sometimes turned to sabotage.
6.12 Resource Geopolitics
Resource geopolitics? is, in NCERT's striking phrase, "all about who gets what, when, where and how". Resources have provided the means and motives of European global expansion since the 17th century; they have been the focus of inter-state rivalry; they have been the cause of war.
6.12.1 Oil — the Most Strategic Resource
Oil — petroleum — has been the most important strategic resource of the modern era. The 20th-century global economy ran on it. The "energy for 95 percent of the world's transportation needs" (NCERT's figure) has come from oil; the petroleum-based products in our daily lives are endless. The wealth and power that come with oil generate political struggles to control it; the history of petroleum is also the history of war.
The Persian Gulf region of West Asia accounts for about 30 percent of global oil production but holds about 64 percent of the world's known reserves — making it the only region able to satisfy any substantial rise in oil demand. Saudi Arabia has about a quarter of the world's total reserves and is the single largest producer. Iraq's known reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia's. The major consumers — the United States, Europe, Japan, and increasingly India and China — are located far from this region. Western strategic thinking from the 1940s onwards has been concerned with uninterrupted supply — by stockpiling, by stationing military forces near production zones and shipping lanes, by propping up friendly governments, and by entering favourable agreements.
6.12.2 OPEC — The Oil Cartel
In 1960, five oil-producing countries — Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Venezuela — founded the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)? at Baghdad. OPEC's purpose was to coordinate petroleum policies among members and secure stable prices for producers. Today OPEC has 13 members (after Qatar, Indonesia and Ecuador withdrew at various points). With Russia and other non-OPEC producers it forms the looser "OPEC+" grouping that effectively manages global oil supply.
| Year | Event | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| 1973 | Yom Kippur War / Arab Oil Embargo | OPEC's Arab members embargoed oil exports to the United States and other supporters of Israel; oil prices roughly quadrupled. Triggered global recession and stagflation in the West. |
| 1979 | Iranian Revolution / Second Oil Shock | Disruption of Iranian production; oil prices doubled again. Led to high inflation, monetary tightening, and major economic restructuring across the developed world. |
| 1980–88 | Iran–Iraq War | Two major oil producers fought a long war; major shipping lanes in the Gulf were threatened; oil prices remained volatile. |
| 1990–91 | First Gulf War | Iraq invaded Kuwait; US-led coalition expelled it. Oil seen as a key motive of the international response. |
| 2003 | Iraq War | US-led invasion of Iraq; oil supplies disrupted; Iraq's reserves came back into focus. |
Crude Oil Prices (US$ per Barrel, Brent, 1970–2024)
6.12.3 Water — The Resource of the 21st Century
If oil dominated the 20th century, water may dominate the 21st. Regional variations and the increasing scarcity of freshwater point to the possibility of disagreements over shared water resources becoming a leading source of conflicts. Some commentators have already coined the phrase "water wars". Countries that share rivers can disagree over many things — most often, an upstream (upper riparian) state's construction of dams, excessive irrigation, or pollution that harms a downstream (lower riparian) state. NCERT cites three classic cases:
Jordan & Yarmuk Rivers
Violence between Israel, Syria and Jordan in the 1950s and 1960s over attempts by each side to divert the rivers. A continuing source of tension in West Asia.
Tigris–Euphrates
Recent threats between Turkey, Syria and Iraq over Turkey's construction of dams (the GAP project) on the upstream stretches of these rivers, reducing water flow downstream.
Nile Basin
Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia have disputed the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), which Ethiopia is building on the Blue Nile. Egypt fears reduced flow to the lower Nile.
6.12.4 Rare-Earth Minerals — The New Resource Frontier
Beyond oil and water, a new category of "strategic" resources has emerged: rare-earth minerals like lithium, cobalt, neodymium and dysprosium. These are essential for batteries, electric vehicles, wind turbines, smartphones and military hardware. China currently dominates global processing of rare-earth elements — controlling about 60 percent of mining and over 85 percent of processing capacity. The Democratic Republic of the Congo holds most of the world's cobalt. As the world transitions away from fossil fuels, the geopolitics of rare-earths is replacing the older geopolitics of oil — and India, with its national Critical Minerals Mission of 2023, has begun to plan for it.
6.13 The Indigenous Peoples and Their Rights
The question of indigenous peoples? brings together environment, resources and politics. The UN defines indigenous populations as the descendants of peoples who inhabited the present territory of a country at the time when persons of a different culture or ethnic origin arrived from other parts of the world and overcame them. Indigenous people today live more in conformity with their particular social, economic and cultural customs than with the institutions of the country they now form part of.
The world has approximately 30 crore (300 million) indigenous peoples. NCERT lists some of the larger groups:
| Community | Region | Population |
|---|---|---|
| Cordillera region peoples | Philippines | 20 lakh |
| Mapuche people | Chile | 10 lakh |
| Chittagong Hill Tracts tribals | Bangladesh | 6 lakh |
| Native Americans | North America | 35 lakh |
| Kuna people | East of Panama Canal | 50,000 |
| "Small Peoples" | Soviet North / Russia | 10 lakh |
| Polynesians, Melanesians, Micronesians | Oceania | several million |
| Scheduled Tribes | India | ~10 crore (≈8% of population) |
6.13.1 The Indigenous Demand — "Since Times Immemorial"
Indigenous peoples speak of their struggles, agendas and rights. Their voices in world politics call for admission to the world community as equals — not as marginal communities to be administered. They appeal to governments to recognise the continuing existence of indigenous nations as enduring communities with an identity of their own. The phrase used everywhere is "since times immemorial" — the indigenous people refer to their continued occupancy of the lands from which they originate.
What is striking is how similar the worldviews of indigenous societies are, irrespective of geography. They share, NCERT notes, a deep relationship with the land and the variety of life systems supported by it. The loss of land — which is also the loss of an economic resource base — is the most obvious threat to indigenous survival. Can political autonomy be enjoyed without its attachment to the means of physical survival? The answer is mostly no — and that is why the indigenous peoples' movements are so often, simultaneously, environmental movements.
6.13.2 UNDRIP — UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights (2007)
In 2007, after more than two decades of drafting, the UN General Assembly adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)?. It contains 46 articles affirming the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination, to their lands and territories, to their cultures and languages, and to free, prior and informed consent on projects affecting them. The Declaration was adopted by 144 votes in favour, 4 against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States — all of which later reversed their position) and 11 abstentions including India.
The growing international contacts among indigenous leaders that began in the 1970s set the stage for UNDRIP. The World Council of Indigenous Peoples, formed in 1975, became the first of 11 indigenous NGOs to receive consultative status in the United Nations.
6.13.3 Indigenous Peoples in India — The Scheduled Tribes
In India, the description "indigenous people" is usually applied to the Scheduled Tribes, who constitute roughly eight percent of India's population. With the exception of small communities of hunter-gatherers, most indigenous populations in India depend for their subsistence primarily on the cultivation of land. For centuries — if not millennia — they had free access to as much land as they could cultivate. It was only after the establishment of British colonial rule that areas previously inhabited by Scheduled Tribe communities were subjected to outside forces — forest laws, revenue settlements, mining concessions.
Although the Indian Constitution provides Scheduled Tribes with political representation through reserved seats in Lok Sabha and State Assemblies (Articles 330 and 332), and additional protections under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules, NCERT bluntly observes that "they have not got much of the benefits of development in the country." In fact, they have paid a huge cost: tribal communities are the single largest group among people displaced by various developmental projects since independence — by dams, mines, factories and power plants.
6.13.4 The Forest Rights Act, 2006 — A Historic Correction
India's Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 — popularly the Forest Rights Act (FRA)? — is one of the most important laws of independent India for indigenous peoples. The Act recognises the historical injustice done to forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers, who were "denied their traditional rights" by colonial forest laws and post-independence forest policies that did not record their occupancy.
The FRA grants three kinds of rights: individual rights over the land that families have been cultivating; community rights over forest produce, grazing, water bodies and traditional uses; and the most powerful innovation — community forest resource rights, including the right of the gram sabha to protect, regenerate, conserve and manage community forest resources. It was the FRA, combined with the 2013 Supreme Court ruling, that allowed the Dongria Kondh of Niyamgiri to veto Vedanta's bauxite project — the first major use of the law on a national scale.
🌐 Why Indigenous Movements and Environmentalism Are Linked
Why do indigenous movements so often turn into environmental movements — and vice versa? Because indigenous peoples live in the resource — the forest, the river, the hill — that is being threatened. The destruction of the Niyamgiri Hills is not merely the loss of a beautiful landscape; it is the destruction of the Dongria Kondh's god, livelihood, food, water and spiritual world. From the Dongria Kondh's perspective, defending the hill is defending the community. Environment, resources and politics meet most clearly in indigenous struggles.
SOURCE — A Timeline of Tribal Forest Rights in India
Bloom: L4 Analyse
Read the brief timeline below. Identify how Indian forest law has evolved from excluding tribal people to recognising their rights — and write a 100-word note on whether the 2006 Forest Rights Act, in your view, has fulfilled its promise.
- 1865 / 1878: Indian Forest Acts under British rule create the category "Reserved Forest" — tribal occupants treated as "encroachers".
- 1927: Indian Forest Act consolidated; ignores customary rights of tribal people.
- 1980: Forest (Conservation) Act tightens central control over forest land.
- 1990: Government issues guidelines to regularise pre-1980 tribal occupations — implementation patchy.
- 2006: Forest Rights Act passed by Parliament — recognises individual, community and community forest resource rights.
- 2013: Supreme Court (Niyamgiri case) directs that gram sabhas decide forest project clearance.
✅ Pointers
The Forest Rights Act of 2006 marks a fundamental shift: from a colonial framework where the State owns the forest and tribal people are treated as encroachers, to a constitutional framework where forest dwellers are rights-holders. Implementation has been uneven: many community forest resource rights remain unrecognised, and post-2014 amendments to forest law have been criticised for diluting the Act. Yet the Niyamgiri verdict, in which 12 gram sabhas unanimously vetoed Vedanta's mining project, shows the Act's transformative potential when fully applied.
Summary
Chapter 6 at a Glance — Environment and Natural Resources
Environmental concerns moved to the centre of world politics from the 1960s onwards. Key milestones: Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962); the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth (1972); the Stockholm Conference (UNCHE, 1972) and the founding of UNEP; the Brundtland Report (1987) defining sustainable development; the Rio Earth Summit (1992) producing Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration, UNFCCC, the CBD and the Forest Principles; Johannesburg WSSD (2002); Rio+20 (2012); and the Paris Agreement (2015). The "global commons" (atmosphere, Antarctica, ocean floor, outer space) are protected by treaties such as the Antarctic Treaty (1959) and the Madrid Protocol (1991); Garrett Hardin (1968) warned of the "tragedy of the commons". The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) — Rio Principle 7 — frames North-South negotiations. India ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2002 and the Paris Agreement on 2 October 2016; its NDCs target a 45% emissions intensity cut and 50% non-fossil power by 2030, with net-zero by 2070. India and France launched the International Solar Alliance (ISA) at Paris in 2015. India hosted the G20 New Delhi Declaration (2023). India's environmental movements — Chipko (1973), Narmada Bachao (since 1989), Silent Valley (1973–83) and Niyamgiri (Dongria Kondh) — are united by the principle of non-violence. Resource geopolitics is centred on oil (OPEC, 1960; oil shocks of 1973 and 1979), water disputes (Jordan, Tigris-Euphrates, Nile) and rare-earth minerals. Indigenous peoples (~30 crore worldwide) demand recognition: UNDRIP was adopted in 2007; India's Forest Rights Act of 2006 recognises the rights of Scheduled Tribes and traditional forest dwellers.
Key Terms
Environmentalism
Political movement to protect the natural world; emerged in the 1960s with Rachel Carson's Silent Spring.
UNCHE
UN Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm 1972 — first global environmental conference.
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme; created in 1972 after Stockholm; headquartered in Nairobi.
Brundtland Commission
World Commission on Environment and Development; Our Common Future (1987); defined "sustainable development".
Sustainable Development
Development that meets present needs without compromising future generations' ability to meet theirs.
Earth Summit (UNCED)
UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, June 1992; produced 5 outcomes.
Agenda 21
Detailed action plan for sustainable development in the 21st century, adopted at Rio 1992.
UNFCCC
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992; parent treaty for Kyoto and Paris.
CBD
Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992; conserves biodiversity and shares benefits.
UNCCD
UN Convention to Combat Desertification, 1994.
Kyoto Protocol
1997 climate treaty under UNFCCC with binding cuts only on developed countries; India ratified 2002.
Paris Agreement
2015 climate treaty; "well below 2 °C" / 1.5 °C goal; uses Nationally Determined Contributions; India ratified 2 October 2016.
NDC
Nationally Determined Contributions; voluntary national pledges under Paris Agreement.
ISA
International Solar Alliance; launched by India and France at Paris in 2015; over 100 member countries.
CBDR
Common but differentiated responsibilities — Rio Principle 7; basis of India's negotiating position.
Tragedy of the Commons
Garrett Hardin's 1968 idea: open-access resources tend to be over-used and ruined.
Antarctic Treaty
1959 treaty reserving Antarctica for science and peaceful use; Madrid Protocol (1991) banned mining for 50 years.
Chipko Movement
1973 Uttarakhand movement to save trees; led by Sunderlal Bahuguna and Gaura Devi; non-violent.
Narmada Bachao Andolan
Anti-dam, pro-river movement against the Sardar Sarovar; Medha Patkar and Baba Amte; since 1989.
OPEC
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries; founded 1960 with five members; today 13 members.
UNDRIP
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007; 46 articles on indigenous rights.
Forest Rights Act 2006
India's law recognising rights of Scheduled Tribes and traditional forest dwellers over forest land and produce.
NCERT Exercises with Model Answers
Exercise 1 — Multiple Choice
Q1. Which among the following best explains the reason for growing concerns about the environment?
- The developed countries are concerned about protecting nature.
- Protection of the environment is vital for indigenous people and natural habitats.
- The environmental degradation caused by human activities has become pervasive and has reached a dangerous level.
- None of the above.
Correct Option: (c) — The environmental degradation caused by human activities has become pervasive and has reached a dangerous level. While options (a) and (b) are also true in part, option (c) is the most comprehensive and best captures the central reason: the scale and pervasiveness of human-caused environmental damage — climate change, ozone depletion, biodiversity loss, water and air pollution — now threaten the planet's life-support systems and therefore the survival of all communities, rich and poor.
Q2. Mark correct or wrong against each of the following statements about the Earth Summit:
- It was attended by 170 countries, thousands of NGOs and many MNCs.
- The summit was held under the aegis of the UN.
- For the first time, global environmental issues were firmly consolidated at the political level.
- It was a summit meeting.
(a) Correct — The 1992 Rio Earth Summit was attended by 170 countries, thousands of NGOs and many multinational corporations.
(b) Correct — It was held under the aegis of the United Nations as the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED).
(c) Correct — Although Stockholm 1972 had been the first global environmental conference, Rio 1992 was the moment when environmental concerns were firmly consolidated at the highest political level — Heads of State and Government attended.
(d) Correct — Rio was a "summit" — a top-level meeting attended by Heads of State and Government, hence "Earth Summit".
(b) Correct — It was held under the aegis of the United Nations as the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED).
(c) Correct — Although Stockholm 1972 had been the first global environmental conference, Rio 1992 was the moment when environmental concerns were firmly consolidated at the highest political level — Heads of State and Government attended.
(d) Correct — Rio was a "summit" — a top-level meeting attended by Heads of State and Government, hence "Earth Summit".
Q3. Which among the following are TRUE about the global commons?
- The Earth's atmosphere, Antarctica, ocean floor and outer space are considered as part of the global commons.
- The global commons are outside sovereign jurisdiction.
- The question of managing the global commons has reflected the North-South divide.
- The countries of the North are more concerned about the protection of the global commons than the countries of the South.
(a) True — The four classic global commons are the Earth's atmosphere, Antarctica, the ocean floor and outer space.
(b) True — Global commons are areas outside the sovereign jurisdiction of any one state and require common governance.
(c) True — The management of the global commons has reflected the North-South divide; for example, the North focuses on ozone and global warming, the South on development and equity.
(d) Misleading / Partly false — Both North and South are concerned about the global commons, but their priorities differ. The North is more concerned about ozone depletion and climate change as global issues; the South prioritises the link between environment and development. It is therefore misleading to say the North is "more concerned" — both are concerned, but in different ways.
(b) True — Global commons are areas outside the sovereign jurisdiction of any one state and require common governance.
(c) True — The management of the global commons has reflected the North-South divide; for example, the North focuses on ozone and global warming, the South on development and equity.
(d) Misleading / Partly false — Both North and South are concerned about the global commons, but their priorities differ. The North is more concerned about ozone depletion and climate change as global issues; the South prioritises the link between environment and development. It is therefore misleading to say the North is "more concerned" — both are concerned, but in different ways.
Exercise 2 — Short and Long Answer Questions
Q4. What were the outcomes of the Rio Summit?
Model Answer: The 1992 Rio Earth Summit (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, UNCED) produced five major outcomes that set the architecture of global environmental politics for the next three decades:
1. Agenda 21 — A detailed, 800-page action plan for "sustainable development practices" in the 21st century, covering atmosphere, water, forests, waste and patterns of consumption. Critics argued it leaned more towards economic growth than ecological conservation.
2. Rio Declaration — A statement of 27 principles, including the famous Principle 7 — "common but differentiated responsibilities" — which has framed every climate negotiation since.
3. UNFCCC — The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the parent treaty under which the Kyoto Protocol (1997) and the Paris Agreement (2015) were later negotiated.
4. CBD — The Convention on Biological Diversity, to conserve biodiversity, use it sustainably, and share benefits fairly.
5. Forest Principles — A non-binding statement on the conservation and sustainable use of all kinds of forests; a binding treaty was blocked by India and other forest-rich Southern states.
Rio also reached a consensus on combining economic growth with ecological responsibility — captured by the term "sustainable development" coined by the 1987 Brundtland Report. Critics pointed out that Rio left major issues unresolved, especially how to operationalise CBDR and how to finance the South's transition to sustainability.
1. Agenda 21 — A detailed, 800-page action plan for "sustainable development practices" in the 21st century, covering atmosphere, water, forests, waste and patterns of consumption. Critics argued it leaned more towards economic growth than ecological conservation.
2. Rio Declaration — A statement of 27 principles, including the famous Principle 7 — "common but differentiated responsibilities" — which has framed every climate negotiation since.
3. UNFCCC — The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the parent treaty under which the Kyoto Protocol (1997) and the Paris Agreement (2015) were later negotiated.
4. CBD — The Convention on Biological Diversity, to conserve biodiversity, use it sustainably, and share benefits fairly.
5. Forest Principles — A non-binding statement on the conservation and sustainable use of all kinds of forests; a binding treaty was blocked by India and other forest-rich Southern states.
Rio also reached a consensus on combining economic growth with ecological responsibility — captured by the term "sustainable development" coined by the 1987 Brundtland Report. Critics pointed out that Rio left major issues unresolved, especially how to operationalise CBDR and how to finance the South's transition to sustainability.
Q5. What is meant by the global commons? How are they exploited and polluted?
Model Answer: The global commons are resources or areas of the world that lie outside the sovereign jurisdiction of any one state, and therefore require common governance by the international community. NCERT identifies four classic global commons: the Earth's atmosphere, Antarctica, the ocean floor (especially the deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction) and outer space. They are sometimes called res communis humanitatis — "things common to humanity".
How they are exploited and polluted:
Atmosphere: Polluted by greenhouse gases (CO₂, methane) from industry, transport and agriculture, causing climate change. CFCs from refrigerators and aerosols caused the ozone hole, addressed by the 1987 Montreal Protocol.
Antarctica: Threatened by oil spills, illegal fishing, plastic pollution and tourism. The 1959 Antarctic Treaty restricted activity to scientific research, fishing and tourism; the 1991 Madrid Protocol added a 50-year ban on mineral exploitation.
Ocean floor: Threatened by deep-sea mining, oil spills, plastic accumulation and dumping of nuclear waste. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982) sets up the International Seabed Authority, but enforcement is weak.
Outer space: Increasingly cluttered by space debris from defunct satellites and rocket parts; access remains highly unequal between rich and poor countries (NCERT notes that exploitation of outer space is "thoroughly influenced by North-South inequalities").
The central political problem is that no single state has a strong incentive to protect the commons, while every state has an incentive to exploit them — Garrett Hardin's "tragedy of the commons" (1968). International cooperation through treaties is the only way to govern them.
How they are exploited and polluted:
Atmosphere: Polluted by greenhouse gases (CO₂, methane) from industry, transport and agriculture, causing climate change. CFCs from refrigerators and aerosols caused the ozone hole, addressed by the 1987 Montreal Protocol.
Antarctica: Threatened by oil spills, illegal fishing, plastic pollution and tourism. The 1959 Antarctic Treaty restricted activity to scientific research, fishing and tourism; the 1991 Madrid Protocol added a 50-year ban on mineral exploitation.
Ocean floor: Threatened by deep-sea mining, oil spills, plastic accumulation and dumping of nuclear waste. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982) sets up the International Seabed Authority, but enforcement is weak.
Outer space: Increasingly cluttered by space debris from defunct satellites and rocket parts; access remains highly unequal between rich and poor countries (NCERT notes that exploitation of outer space is "thoroughly influenced by North-South inequalities").
The central political problem is that no single state has a strong incentive to protect the commons, while every state has an incentive to exploit them — Garrett Hardin's "tragedy of the commons" (1968). International cooperation through treaties is the only way to govern them.
Q6. What is meant by 'common but differentiated responsibilities'? How could we implement the idea?
Model Answer: "Common but differentiated responsibilities" (CBDR) is a principle of international environmental law, enshrined in Principle 7 of the 1992 Rio Declaration and Article 3 of the UNFCCC. It rests on three claims: (a) all states share a common responsibility to protect and restore the Earth's ecosystem; (b) responsibilities are differentiated by historical contribution to environmental damage; and (c) developed countries acknowledge that the pressures their societies place on the global environment, and the technological and financial resources they command, oblige them to take more responsibility.
How to implement CBDR: The principle has been implemented in three main ways. First, by exempting developing countries from binding emission cuts under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol — China, India and other developing parties had no quantitative cuts, while developed (Annex I) countries did. Second, by requiring developed countries to provide finance and technology transfer to developing countries — pledged at Copenhagen (2009) at $100 billion per year by 2020, scaled up after Paris. Third, by allowing differentiated targets and timelines under the Paris Agreement (2015): India's net-zero target is 2070, while most developed countries target 2050. CBDR can be further strengthened by deeper finance flows through the Green Climate Fund, by lifting intellectual-property barriers on clean technology, and by allowing each country a fair "carbon budget" based on per capita emissions and historical responsibility.
How to implement CBDR: The principle has been implemented in three main ways. First, by exempting developing countries from binding emission cuts under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol — China, India and other developing parties had no quantitative cuts, while developed (Annex I) countries did. Second, by requiring developed countries to provide finance and technology transfer to developing countries — pledged at Copenhagen (2009) at $100 billion per year by 2020, scaled up after Paris. Third, by allowing differentiated targets and timelines under the Paris Agreement (2015): India's net-zero target is 2070, while most developed countries target 2050. CBDR can be further strengthened by deeper finance flows through the Green Climate Fund, by lifting intellectual-property barriers on clean technology, and by allowing each country a fair "carbon budget" based on per capita emissions and historical responsibility.
Q7. Why have issues related to global environmental protection become the priority concern of states since the 1990s?
Model Answer: Environmental issues have become a priority concern of states since the 1990s for several inter-connected reasons:
1. Scale of degradation. Cultivable land is barely expanding; fisheries are over-harvested; freshwater is becoming scarce. According to the UNDP's Human Development Report 2016, 663 million people in developing countries lack safe water and 2.4 billion lack sanitation, contributing to over 3 million child deaths a year. Such facts can no longer be ignored.
2. Cross-border nature of problems. Climate change, ozone depletion, transboundary pollution and species extinction cannot be solved by any single government; they require world politics.
3. The Rio Earth Summit (1992). The presence of 170 states, thousands of NGOs and many MNCs at Rio firmly consolidated environmental issues at the highest political level. Five binding/framework outcomes (Agenda 21, Rio Declaration, UNFCCC, CBD, Forest Principles) created an institutional architecture.
4. Scientific consensus. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), set up in 1988, produced a series of reports establishing scientific consensus on human-caused warming. This made it harder for governments to deny the urgency.
5. Strong civil society. Environmental NGOs, indigenous movements (UNDRIP, 2007), youth movements and a growing global media made environmental issues part of every national political conversation.
6. Economic stakes. Environmental degradation now imposes large economic costs — from disaster losses to health costs to climate-driven migration. Treating the environment as a luxury is no longer politically affordable.
For all these reasons, no state — rich or poor — can afford today to ignore environmental questions in its foreign policy.
1. Scale of degradation. Cultivable land is barely expanding; fisheries are over-harvested; freshwater is becoming scarce. According to the UNDP's Human Development Report 2016, 663 million people in developing countries lack safe water and 2.4 billion lack sanitation, contributing to over 3 million child deaths a year. Such facts can no longer be ignored.
2. Cross-border nature of problems. Climate change, ozone depletion, transboundary pollution and species extinction cannot be solved by any single government; they require world politics.
3. The Rio Earth Summit (1992). The presence of 170 states, thousands of NGOs and many MNCs at Rio firmly consolidated environmental issues at the highest political level. Five binding/framework outcomes (Agenda 21, Rio Declaration, UNFCCC, CBD, Forest Principles) created an institutional architecture.
4. Scientific consensus. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), set up in 1988, produced a series of reports establishing scientific consensus on human-caused warming. This made it harder for governments to deny the urgency.
5. Strong civil society. Environmental NGOs, indigenous movements (UNDRIP, 2007), youth movements and a growing global media made environmental issues part of every national political conversation.
6. Economic stakes. Environmental degradation now imposes large economic costs — from disaster losses to health costs to climate-driven migration. Treating the environment as a luxury is no longer politically affordable.
For all these reasons, no state — rich or poor — can afford today to ignore environmental questions in its foreign policy.
Q8. Compromise and accommodation are the two essential policies required by states to save planet Earth. Substantiate the statement in the light of the ongoing negotiations between the North and South on environmental issues.
Model Answer: The North-South divide on environmental issues is sharp and longstanding. The North argues that environmental degradation is a now problem and demands universal action; the South insists that the problem is historical and that the rich countries — having industrialised first — must take greater responsibility. To save planet Earth, both sides have had to learn to compromise and accommodate.
Examples of compromise and accommodation:
(a) The Rio Declaration (1992) — Principle 7 enshrines "common but differentiated responsibilities". The North accepted that it bears greater historical responsibility, while the South accepted shared global responsibility — a compromise that allowed agreement on UNFCCC and CBD.
(b) The Kyoto Protocol (1997) — Binding cuts were imposed only on Annex I (developed) parties; developing countries (China, India and others) were exempted in recognition of their lower per capita emissions and development needs.
(c) The Paris Agreement (2015) — All countries — for the first time — agreed to submit Nationally Determined Contributions, but on a flexible "bottom-up" basis. The North accepted that targets must remain voluntary to be politically acceptable; the South accepted that exemptions could not last forever. India set a net-zero target of 2070 — twenty years later than most developed countries — yet within the same global framework.
(d) Climate finance. Developed countries have pledged $100 billion per year by 2020 (extended to a higher goal post-2025) for developing-country mitigation and adaptation. Although the pledge is not always met, the principle of accommodation between rich and poor on finance is now established.
Conclusion: Without compromise and accommodation, no agreement on the planet's environment is possible. The North must accept differentiated obligations; the South must accept growing responsibilities as it industrialises. Saving Planet Earth therefore requires both ambition and equity.
Examples of compromise and accommodation:
(a) The Rio Declaration (1992) — Principle 7 enshrines "common but differentiated responsibilities". The North accepted that it bears greater historical responsibility, while the South accepted shared global responsibility — a compromise that allowed agreement on UNFCCC and CBD.
(b) The Kyoto Protocol (1997) — Binding cuts were imposed only on Annex I (developed) parties; developing countries (China, India and others) were exempted in recognition of their lower per capita emissions and development needs.
(c) The Paris Agreement (2015) — All countries — for the first time — agreed to submit Nationally Determined Contributions, but on a flexible "bottom-up" basis. The North accepted that targets must remain voluntary to be politically acceptable; the South accepted that exemptions could not last forever. India set a net-zero target of 2070 — twenty years later than most developed countries — yet within the same global framework.
(d) Climate finance. Developed countries have pledged $100 billion per year by 2020 (extended to a higher goal post-2025) for developing-country mitigation and adaptation. Although the pledge is not always met, the principle of accommodation between rich and poor on finance is now established.
Conclusion: Without compromise and accommodation, no agreement on the planet's environment is possible. The North must accept differentiated obligations; the South must accept growing responsibilities as it industrialises. Saving Planet Earth therefore requires both ambition and equity.
Q9. The most serious challenge before the states is pursuing economic development without causing further damage to the global environment. How could we achieve this? Explain with a few examples.
Model Answer: The greatest political challenge of the 21st century is sustainable development — economic growth that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland Report, 1987). It can be achieved through five principal strategies, with examples:
1. Decarbonising energy. Move from coal, oil and gas to solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear power. Example: India's National Solar Mission and the International Solar Alliance (launched 2015) aim to mobilise over $1 trillion of solar investment by 2030.
2. Energy efficiency. Reduce energy use per unit of GDP through better buildings, transport, appliances and industry. Example: India's Energy Conservation Act 2001 and the Bureau of Energy Efficiency's appliance star-rating scheme.
3. Cleaner mobility. Shift transport from petrol/diesel to public transport, electric vehicles and railways. Example: India's National Auto-Fuel Policy mandating cleaner vehicle fuels (BS-VI from 2020) and the FAME-II scheme for electric vehicles.
4. Forest and biodiversity restoration. Protect forests, restore degraded land, and enhance carbon sinks. Example: India's NDC commitment to create an additional carbon sink of 2.5–3 billion tonnes of CO₂ equivalent by 2030 through forest and tree cover.
5. International cooperation. Provide finance, technology and capacity to developing countries; honour CBDR. Example: The Green Climate Fund and the $100-billion-per-year climate finance pledge under the Paris Agreement; technology transfer through the ISA and the G20 New Delhi Declaration of 2023.
The deeper insight: Sustainable development does not abandon growth — it changes what kind of growth we pursue. Economic growth based on renewable energy, circular economies, restored ecosystems and inclusive institutions can lift millions out of poverty while protecting the planet. India's pledge of net-zero by 2070, combined with rapid renewable expansion and a 45% emissions intensity cut by 2030, is a national-scale example of how this can be done.
1. Decarbonising energy. Move from coal, oil and gas to solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear power. Example: India's National Solar Mission and the International Solar Alliance (launched 2015) aim to mobilise over $1 trillion of solar investment by 2030.
2. Energy efficiency. Reduce energy use per unit of GDP through better buildings, transport, appliances and industry. Example: India's Energy Conservation Act 2001 and the Bureau of Energy Efficiency's appliance star-rating scheme.
3. Cleaner mobility. Shift transport from petrol/diesel to public transport, electric vehicles and railways. Example: India's National Auto-Fuel Policy mandating cleaner vehicle fuels (BS-VI from 2020) and the FAME-II scheme for electric vehicles.
4. Forest and biodiversity restoration. Protect forests, restore degraded land, and enhance carbon sinks. Example: India's NDC commitment to create an additional carbon sink of 2.5–3 billion tonnes of CO₂ equivalent by 2030 through forest and tree cover.
5. International cooperation. Provide finance, technology and capacity to developing countries; honour CBDR. Example: The Green Climate Fund and the $100-billion-per-year climate finance pledge under the Paris Agreement; technology transfer through the ISA and the G20 New Delhi Declaration of 2023.
The deeper insight: Sustainable development does not abandon growth — it changes what kind of growth we pursue. Economic growth based on renewable energy, circular economies, restored ecosystems and inclusive institutions can lift millions out of poverty while protecting the planet. India's pledge of net-zero by 2070, combined with rapid renewable expansion and a 45% emissions intensity cut by 2030, is a national-scale example of how this can be done.
⚠ Six Numbers to Remember from Section 3
1959 — Antarctic Treaty. 1960 — OPEC founded with 5 members; today 13. 1968 — Hardin, "Tragedy of the Commons". 1973 — Chipko Movement begins; first oil shock; Silent Valley campaign begins. 1979 — Second oil shock. 1989 — Narmada Bachao Andolan (Medha Patkar). 2006 — India's Forest Rights Act. 2007 — UNDRIP adopted by UN. 2013 — Niyamgiri verdict — Dongria Kondh gram sabhas veto Vedanta's bauxite mining.
📋
Competency-Based Questions — Part 3
Case Study: India's environmental movements — Chipko (1973, Uttarakhand, Sunderlal Bahuguna and Gaura Devi), Narmada Bachao Andolan (since 1989, Medha Patkar and Baba Amte), Silent Valley (1973–83, Kerala) and the Niyamgiri Hills struggle (Odisha, Dongria Kondh tribe vs Vedanta) — share a Gandhian commitment to non-violence. Resource geopolitics is now central to world politics: OPEC was founded in 1960, oil shocks in 1973 and 1979 reshaped the global economy, and "water wars" between upstream and downstream states (Jordan, Tigris-Euphrates, Nile) loom over the 21st century. The world's ~30 crore indigenous peoples are increasingly heard: UNDRIP was adopted by the UN in 2007; India's Forest Rights Act of 2006 recognises the rights of Scheduled Tribes and traditional forest dwellers.
Q1. The Chipko Movement (1973) began in:
L1 RememberAnswer: (C) — The Chipko Movement began in 1973 in the Reni village of Chamoli district in what is now Uttarakhand (then part of Uttar Pradesh). The most famous moment was 26 March 1974, when Gaura Devi led the village women in physically embracing the trees to stop loggers.
Q2. The "tragedy of the commons" refers to:
L2 UnderstandAnswer: (B) — Garrett Hardin (1968) used the parable of a village pasture open to all: each herder benefits from adding a cow, but the cost (overgrazing) is shared by all. So everyone adds cows until the pasture is destroyed. The same logic explains over-fishing, ozone depletion, and climate change.
Q3. Analyse, in five sentences, why India's environmental movements (Chipko, Narmada Bachao, Niyamgiri) are also movements for tribal and rural rights.
L4 AnalyseModel Answer: India's environmental movements are simultaneously movements for tribal and rural rights because the people living in the threatened resource — forest, river valley, hill — are usually tribal and rural communities themselves. Chipko was led by women of Garhwal villages whose forests fed and clothed them. The Narmada Bachao Andolan defended hundreds of thousands of tribal and farming families from displacement by the Sardar Sarovar Dam. The Niyamgiri struggle was led by the Dongria Kondh tribe to defend their sacred hill from Vedanta's bauxite mining. The shared insight: destroying the resource destroys the community — therefore environmental and indigenous-rights movements in India are usually two sides of the same coin, united by the principle of non-violence.
HOT Q. Imagine you are drafting a 200-word op-ed for a national newspaper on the question: "Are India's tribal communities the country's first environmentalists?" Make a clear argument with at least two pieces of evidence.
L6 CreateSuggested Op-Ed (~200 words): India's tribal communities are not just among the country's first environmentalists — in many ways they are the original ones. For centuries, sacred groves managed by village communities along the forest belts of South India preserved biodiversity that modern forest departments could not. Today, the Dongria Kondh of Niyamgiri have, through their gram sabhas, vetoed Vedanta's bauxite project — exercising rights given by the Forest Rights Act of 2006 and protected by the Supreme Court's 2013 Niyamgiri verdict. The Chipko Movement of 1973 was led by Garhwali women who, in hugging their trees, taught the world that ecology is not a luxury but a livelihood. Sunderlal Bahuguna's slogan — that forests bear "soil, water and pure air" — predates by decades the modern science of ecosystem services. Tribal and forest-dweller communities have managed ecosystems sustainably for centuries, often with the most rudimentary tools, simply because their survival depended on it. Modern environmentalism, with its global summits and treaties, has much to learn from this older, indigenous environmentalism. Recognising tribal communities as partners rather than obstacles in conservation is therefore not just a matter of justice — it is, more practically, the most reliable path to a sustainable India.
⚖️ Assertion–Reason Questions — Part 3
Options:
(A) Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A.
(B) Both A and R are true, but R is NOT the correct explanation of A.
(C) A is true, but R is false.
(D) A is false, but R is true.
(A) Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A.
(B) Both A and R are true, but R is NOT the correct explanation of A.
(C) A is true, but R is false.
(D) A is false, but R is true.
Assertion (A): The Narmada Bachao Andolan, led by Medha Patkar and supported by Baba Amte, is one of the most important anti-dam movements in India.
Reason (R): The most important shared idea in anti-dam and other environmental movements in India is non-violence.
Answer: (B) — Both A and R are true. A correctly identifies the NBA's leadership and importance; R correctly states a feature of Indian environmental movements (NCERT explicitly observes this). However, R does not explain A — it adds a related observation. The NBA's importance comes from the scale of displacement at stake and its sustained legal-political campaign, not (only) from its non-violent character.
Assertion (A): The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was founded in 1960 with five members.
Reason (R): All members of OPEC are located in the Persian Gulf region of West Asia.
Answer: (C) — A is true: OPEC was founded in 1960 in Baghdad with five members — Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Venezuela. R is false: OPEC has members from outside the Persian Gulf — Venezuela (South America), Algeria, Libya and Nigeria (Africa), Indonesia (until withdrawal). Today OPEC has 13 members across multiple regions.
Assertion (A): India's Forest Rights Act, 2006 recognises the rights of Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers over forest lands and resources.
Reason (R): The Act was based on the recognition that "historical injustice" had been done to forest-dwelling communities under colonial and post-independence forest laws that did not record their occupancy.
Answer: (A) — Both A and R are true, and R correctly explains A. The Forest Rights Act of 2006 explicitly states that its purpose is to undo the "historical injustice" done to forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers, whose customary rights had been ignored by both colonial forest laws (1865, 1878, 1927) and post-independence forest policies. The 2013 Niyamgiri verdict by the Supreme Court was the most prominent application of this Act.
Chapter 6 — Environment and Natural Resources — Complete
You have now covered Section 6.1 to 6.13 with full NCERT exercises and model answers.
You have now covered Section 6.1 to 6.13 with full NCERT exercises and model answers.
AI Tutor
Class 12 Political Science — Contemporary World Politics
Ready