Actually, the newer acronym for “Common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” seems to be CBDRC. And if you read CBDR&RC in a regime applicable to all — the fine new paper by Harald Winkler & Lavanya Rajamani — you will learn a great deal about the subject indeed. In particular, you’ll learn a great deal about the need for a “more nuanced interpretation” of CBDRC than the one that asserts that “equity” implies a continued (and unproblematic) defense on the Convention Annexes, as we have them today. To quote the abstract:
“The world has changed since the UNFCCC was negotiated in 1992. It is now less helpful to think only in terms of two groups of countries (e.g. Annex I and non-Annex I), and evident that there are significant differences between member states. This requires a more nuanced interpretation of the principles of equity and CBDR&RC, which is an integral part of the UNFCCC. The options for the different approaches outlined in this article might help in the construction of a more nuanced model. All must do more, while some must do more still than others.”
Winkler and Rajamani do have a particular view of how to resolve the “contested issue” of differentiation. They believe that groupings like the Annexes are still necessary, and that they will remain so for some time. They certainly see a role for “a more objective framework” within which to approach the problem. Like so:
“Closely related to the issue of ‘objective’ criteria for graduation from one category to another is the issue of ‘objective’ criteria for the selection of mitigation targets, contributions, and pledges. Similar considerations apply here too. It seems fair to say that no country will accept a mitigation target as the outcome of a calculation based on ‘objective’ criteria a priori. However, the application of ‘objective’ criteria is likely to result in more objective results than the targets selected by countries as their pledges or contributions. A more objective reference framework – which has been called an ‘equity-based reference framework’ (Baer, Athanasiou, & Kartha, 2008; BASIC experts, 2011) – could thus provide a reference point that is based on what is required by science, is good for development, and is fair. The reference to fairness makes it clear that there would be a normative dimension to this framework. Such an equity-based reference framework is likely to demonstrate what countries should ideally do, and thereby create a tension between this and what they are currently willing to do as put forward in multilateral negotiations.”
