[Answered] Discuss the concept of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC). How does CBAM undermine this principle in the context of international climate agreements?

Common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), principle of international environmental law establish that all states are responsible for addressing global environmental destruction yet not equally responsible. CBDR was formalized in international law at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro. The CBDR concept has evolved into CBDR-RC with the addition of Respective Capacities term to it, in the Paris Accord. CBDR-RC principle, has since then been a key element in international environmental agreements involving climate change. The principle recognizes historical differences in the contributions of developed and developing States to the creation of global environmental problems like climate change, global warming. At the same time, the principle also recognizes the differences in the economic and technical capacities of developed and developing countries to tackle these problems.

How CBAM Undermines CBDR-RC

• Shifting the Burden to Developing Countries: CBAM forces exporters from developing countries to bear additional costs for complying with EU carbon pricing standards. This contradicts the CBDR-RC principle, which requires developed countries to support rather than penalize developing nations for their lower emissions capabilities and resources.
• Neglecting Historical Responsibilities: CBAM applies a uniform tax based on carbon content, ignoring the historical emissions of developed countries like EU members. It disproportionately impacts developing nations that have contributed minimally to historical greenhouse gas concentrations.
• Trade Barriers and Economic Inequality: CBAM acts as a trade barrier, making exports from developing countries less competitive in global markets. For example, countries like India and Indonesia, heavily reliant on carbon-intensive industries, may face significant economic disadvantages.
• Lack of Financial and Technological Support: CBDR-RC mandates developed nations to assist developing countries with climate adaptation and mitigation. However, CBAM imposes additional compliance costs on these countries without ensuring reciprocal financial or technological support.
• Risk of Climate Colonialism: CBAM can be perceived as a form of “climate colonialism,” where developed nations impose their climate standards on developing countries without accounting for their unique developmental needs and constraints.

Conclusion

Protectionist measures like CBAM undermine the cooperative efforts essential for tackling global climate challenges. India’s criticism of CBAM as “discriminatory” is justified, as it disproportionately burdens developing nations while disregarding historical emissions and differences in capacities. By championing equity-based approaches, advocating for revenue redistribution, and upholding the principles of CBDR-RC, India can enhance its role as a leader in international climate negotiations and foster a more just and inclusive approach to combating climate change.