What you need to know about...'Common but differentiated responsibility'

By Olivia Oldham

What does 'common but differentiated responsibility'  (CBDR) mean?
Common but differentiated responsibility (sometimes with the addition of the phrase 'and respective capacities') is a principle of international law which means that different countries have different capabilities and responsibilities to address cross-border environmental issues such as climate change. It balances:

• The need for all states to take individual responsibility for environmental destruction and its mitigation

with....

• The recognition that states aren't equally responsibly for the problem nor equally capable of responding to it.

 
How does CBDR work?
Under the Paris Agreement, all signatory countries are obliged to mitigate their carbon emissions through the 'Nationally Determined Contribution' (NDC) mechanism 3, 4.2). Because countries can voluntarily set their own NDC's,  their respective obligations can be substantially differentiated.

Differentiation between different countries' obligations is also provided for in other ways throughout the agreement, including:

• An overarching principle that guides the implementation of the Agreement and recognises 'different national circumstances' (Art 2.2)
  • This additional phrase broadens the scope of what differentiation of obligations can be based upon, including the fact that national circumstances might change
• A recognition that 'developing' countries will reach peak emissions later than 'developed' countries (art 4.1)
  • 'Developed' countries 'should' take the lead on "economy-wide absolute emission reduction" whereas 'developing' countries should continue to improve their own efforts (art 4.4)
• Support is to be provided to 'developing' countries to enable more ambitious targets (art 4.5)
• A mechanism wherein 'developed' countries are required to provide 'developing' countries with financial assistance for mitigation and adaptation (art 9.1)
• Recognition of countries' different capacities to engage in the transparent reporting framework provided for by the Agreement (art 13)

 
What's the history of the concept?
The Montreal Protocol (1989)
An early example of the CBDR principle can be found in the Montreal Protocol, a reasonably successful treaty that dealt with the emission of chemicals causing the destruction of the ozone layer. This involved:

• A 10-year grace period for 'developing countries' with a low annual consumption of the gases
• A financial mechanism and technology transfer requirements to support these later implementing countries to meet their obligations
  • 'Developing' countries' obligations were made conditional on effective cooperation of 'developed' countries through this mechanism (art 5(5))

 
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change & Rio Declaration (1992)

• Rio Declaration Principle 17
• UNFCCC contained a strong version of the principle (arts 3, 4)
• 'Developed' countries were also required to provide finance and technology to 'developing' countries under the UNFCCC (Arts 4.3, 4.7)

 
The Kyoto Protocol (1997)

• Required 'developed' countries to have emissions reductions targets, whereas 'developing' countries only needed to take more general measures to address the problem of greenhouse gas emissions, depending on their national context.

 
Why is CBDR controversial?
Some countries have gained new capabilities, and their emissions have dramatically increased since 1992 (e.g. China, India, the UAE, Singapore). These countries' contributions to global Green House Gas (GHG) emissions, as well as their capacity to address the problem are likely to continue to grow. Given the urgency of the climate emergency, it can be argued that these countries need to shoulder greater responsibility in order for the Paris Agreement targets to be met.
 
The above argument partly reflects a wider disagreement about the role of historic versus current responsibility for the problem and the role of equity (as opposed to a simpler approach of equality) in addressing climate change. For example, the USA rejected "any interpretation of [CBDR] that would imply a recognition or acceptance by the United States of any international obligations or liabilities, or any diminution in the responsibilities of developing countries" all the way back in 1992. This is one of the reasons why the USA was not a party to the Kyoto Protocol, and why the PA now contains a weaker version of the principle.
 
Why does it make sense, despite the controversy?

• Justice/equity:
  • 'Developed' countries have historically and still, in many cases, do put far greater pressure on the global environment than 'developing' countries. Their economies have benefited from that pressure in ways that 'developing' countries' economies have not.
  • It would be deeply unfair not to recognise this historical difference, which has significant ongoing effects today, in allocating shares of the burden of solving the problem
• Pragmatism:
  • Some countries simply do not have the capacity—whether economic, technological, or political—to contribute the same amount as other countries can without assistance and allowances
  • The Paris Agreement's more flexible approach to CBDR allows for the degree of differentiation to adapt and change over time as countries gain the capacity to contribute more to collective goals
  • Fortuitously, pragmatism in this case tends to align with questions of climate justice and equity

 
 
References
https://climatenexus.org/climate-change-news/common-but-differentiated-responsibilities-and-respective-capabilities-cbdr-rc/
 
https://www.britannica.com/topic/common-but-differentiated-responsibilities
 
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-why-differentiation-is-key-to-unlocking-paris-climate-deal
 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674927818301230
 
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/12/a-readers-guide-to-the-paris-agreement/420345/
 
https://www.connect4climate.org/sites/default/files/files/publications/Climate%20Justice_Manuj%20Bhardwaj%20India_0.pdf
 
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0298-6
 
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3176729?seq=1
 
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/transnational-environmental-law/article/dynamic-differentiation-the-principles-of-cbdrrc-progression-and-highest-possible-ambition-in-the-paris-agreement/59D247C2EFFAD77F980A4CA67B5C4ED3
 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/573910/EPRS_BRI(2016)573910_EN.pdf
 
https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf
 
https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/The%20Ozone%20Treaties%20EN%20-%20WEB_final.pdf
 
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/docs/cop3/l07a01.pdf
 
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/controversial-climate-summit-issues-positions-germany
 
https://cic.nyu.edu/blog/global-development/do-common-differentiated-responsibilities-belong-post-2015-sdgs