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
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]2021 WEF Global Gender Gap report, which confirmed its 2016 finding of a decline in worldwide progress towards gender parity.
Over 2.8 billion women are legally restricted from having the same choice of jobs as men. As many as 104 countries still have laws preventing women from working in specific jobs, 59 countries have no laws on sexual harassment in the workplace, and it is astonishing that a handful of countries still allow husbands to legally stop their wives from working.
Globally, women’s participation in the labour force is estimated at 63% (as against 94% of men who participate), but India’s is at a dismal 25% or so currently. Most women are in informal and vulnerable employment—domestic help, agriculture, etc—and are always paid less than men.
Recent reports from Assam suggest that women workers in plantations are paid much less than men and never promoted to supervisory roles. The gender wage gap is about 24% globally, and women have lost far more jobs than men during lockdowns.
The problem of gender disparity is compounded by hurdles put up by governments, society and businesses: unequal access to social security schemes, banking services, education, digital services and so on, even as a glass ceiling has kept leadership roles out of women’s reach.
Yes, many governments and businesses had been working on parity before the pandemic struck. But the global gender gap, defined by differences reflected in the social, political, intellectual, cultural and economic attainments or attitudes of men and women, will not narrow in the near future without all major stakeholders working together on a clear agenda—that of economic growth by inclusion.
The WEF report estimates 135 years to close the gap at our current rate of progress based on four pillars: educational attainment, health, economic participation and political empowerment.
India has slipped from rank 112 to 140 in a single year, confirming how hard women were hit by the pandemic. Pakistan and Afghanistan are the only two Asian countries that fared worse.
Here are a few things we must do:
One, frame policies for equal-opportunity employment. Use technology and artificial intelligence to eliminate biases of gender, caste, etc, and select candidates at all levels on merit. Numerous surveys indicate that women in general have a better chance of landing jobs if their gender is not known to recruiters.
Two, foster a culture of gender sensitivity. Take a review of current policies and move from gender-neutral to gender-sensitive. Encourage and insist on diversity and inclusion at all levels, and promote more women internally to leadership roles. Demolish silos to let women grab potential opportunities in hitherto male-dominant roles. Work-from-home has taught us how efficiently women can manage flex-timings and productivity.
Three, deploy corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds for the education and skilling of women and girls at the bottom of the pyramid. CSR allocations to toilet building, the PM-Cares fund and firms’ own trusts could be re-channelled for this.
Four, get more women into research and development (R&D) roles. A study of over 4,000 companies found that more women in R&D jobs resulted in radical innovation. It appears women score far higher than men in championing change. If you seek growth from affordable products and services for low-income groups, women often have the best ideas.
Five, break barriers to allow progress. Cultural and structural issues must be fixed. Unconscious biases and discrimination are rampant even in highly-esteemed organizations. Establish fair and transparent human resource policies.
Six, get involved in local communities to engage them. As Michael Porter said, it is not possible for businesses to sustain long-term shareholder value without ensuring the welfare of the communities they exist in. It is in the best interest of enterprises to engage with local communities to understand and work towards lowering cultural and other barriers in society. It will also help connect with potential customers, employees and special interest groups driving the gender-equity agenda and achieve better diversity.