CBDR – Common But Differentiated Responsibilities
Background :-
The CBDR principle is a key principle of negotiation on a global forum for a global agenda and to achieve a global target for the developing countries. Recently it has been emphasized by Indian policy makers to include this principle in the “Paris Climate Summit”.
Evolution of CBDR principle:
The concept of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) was enshrined as Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration at the first Rio Earth Summit in 1992.
“In view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command.”
Similar language exists in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; parties should act to protect the climate system “on the basis of equality and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.”
The principle holds that although all countries are responsible for the development of global society, each has a different set of capabilities that they can contribute to this project. The Stockholm declaration, for instance states that policy makers must consider, “the applicability of standards which are valid for the most advanced countries but which may be inappropriate and of unwarranted social cost for the developing countries.”
CBDR aims to take these differences into account when goals and benchmarks are applied to global development agendas. The logic is that if the expectations levied on countries are more appropriate to their national capabilities (social, economic, environmental, etc.), individual country efforts will more effectively complement each other.
Applications of CBDR:-
Before laying out proposals that more effectively represent the CBDR principle in the context of the post-2015 agenda, it is important to explore the different ways the principle has been manifested in existing policies.
Environment-
We have seen the clearest manifestation of CBDR under the environmental pillar of sustainable development. For example, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol made a distinction between proposed goals for developed and developing countries by requiring “developed countries to reduce their emissions while developing countries only needed to report their emissions.” Certainly, this implication would shift the burden and responsibility to developed countries. This manifestation of CBDR led to the agreement of developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gases (GHG) via a binding agreement. These countries now fall under Annex 1 of the Kyoto Protocol and are committed to reducing the GHG emissions in compliance with certain pre-agreed targets.
Poverty Eradication:-
This differentiation is manifested via Millenium Development Goals . LDCs (Least Developed Countries) and other developing countries argue that they have much more work to do in the area of poverty eradication while developed countries can accept that they have less
Financing:-
CBDR can be identified in the area of development financing most clearly in the Monterrey Consensus. In this document, the first clear responsibility that falls on developed countries is “the objective of duty-free and quota free access” to developed country markets for LDC exports
Analysis of the Principle:-
- With respect to the environment, the greatest impacts of climate change are felt by developing countries, whilst the greatest per capita GHG emissions are concentrated in developed countries. So, the principle holds that if developed countries have the highest rates of GHG emissions (which is representative of their contribution to climate change) and they have the greatest capacities to reduce their emissions, they should also take on the greatest brunt of the performance of climate change mitigation
- Though,this is a very valid stand on part of the developing countries, yet it is the developing countries that face the wrath of climate change and does not have enough capacity to fight it.
- Hence , it is equally important for the developing countries , on their pursuit of development , they must try to go “GREEN” as far as possible. To realize this goal, financing and technology transfer from developed world is a must.
- One might think this principle as – “You do your bit , I will do mine” , however this does not work that way . No country works in isolation and hence this principle should not be looked upon as give and take , instead , it is reduce and let reduce, achieve and let achieve and do and help us do principle.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.