It has come to ECO’s attention that some Parties think that a core principle of climate justice and international environmental law in general is merely an inconvenience that is no longer needed. Concretely, across multiple negotiating tracks, US negotiators have reportedly been striking any and all references to Common but Differentiated Responsibilities – and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC).
CBDR-RC is a bedrock principle of the Paris Agreement and has been a core part of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change for more than thirty years. At its most basic level, CBDR-RC reflects the reality that the wealthy developed countries (aka the global north) are largely responsible for the climate crisis due to their outsized historical emissions and therefore must lead in taking actions to reduce carbon emissions, as well as the obligation to provide climate finance to developing countries. Global north countries have built their wealth off their fossil fuel-based industrial development.
There can be no justice in any climate negotiation outcome if references to CBDR-RC – and equity in general – are struck out or opposed by parties to the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. Doing so sets a dangerous precedent that CBDR–RC is a thing of the past. When so many commitments and promises for climate justice have been broken, this is not only unjust – it is insulting.
As such, ECO finds it deeply troubling that the US seems to be taking every opportunity to erase CBDR-RC and equity. In an extremely Orwellian moment, we even heard of an instance where US negotiators refused to participate in a side event unless references to CBDR-RC and equity were cut from the event’s description.
It is 2024, not 1984. ECO calls on the US to stop these underhanded negotiating tactics. We can certainly understand how – as the world’s leading historical emitter – the US would not be a fan of historical responsibility and differentiated capacity. But the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement are the results of global negotiations that nearly 200 countries – including the US – have signed. Perhaps the US’s time and energy would be better used if it focused on being the climate leader it so often claims to be. The US should instead provide its fair share of support to the global south and demonstrate what equity should look like, particularly during discussions around the NCQG and the Global Goal on Adaptation. Acting in good faith is critical to building trust and catalysing ambition amongst parties.
Common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities are foundational, and will continue to be so, even as the world changes around us. Erasing references to them makes the outcomes of climate negotiations weaker, not stronger. All Parties, including the US, should embrace that, rather than attempting to scrub a well-established principle of the UNFCCC from negotiating texts. We urge all Parties to hold the line and keep CBDR-RC – and equity – in negotiating texts.