Is “Common But Differentiated Responsibilities” principle applicable in biodiversity? – Towards approaches for shared responsibilities based on updated capabilities and data

Abstract

The application of the “Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (and Respective Capabilities)” (CBDR-RC) principle in the field of biodiversity received criticisms due to the lack of scientific evidence and/or outdated categories which in turn resulted in a knowledge gap in its applicability in policy-making. Reflecting on this research gap, we reviewed existing relevant publications by quantifying and evaluating the responsibility of different countries under various categories (i.e., low-, middle-, and high-income) for biodiversity loss. As concrete indicators, we used the five direct drivers of biodiversity loss by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) to examine and identify biodiversity-related footprints and challenges, whereby the applicability of the CBDR principle was considered. Data on the national impact and positive contributions to global biodiversity were also encompassed, considering all available data from older periods as possible. The results showed that low-, middle-, and high-income countries contributed to biodiversity loss, with high-income countries as the largest contributor, indicating relatively high responsibility by developed countries. Meanwhile, developing (middle- and low-income) countries contributed about 44% of biodiversity loss. The results further indicated that the shared responsibility was not clear enough to be sorted out by a simple dichotomy between developed and developing countries and immediately applying the CBDR principle. Besides, the impact of global trade should be fairly attributed to consumer countries (frequently developed countries) and producer countries (developing countries). Moreover, the upward move in the income category in many countries in the last decades has not been fully reflected in discussions under the Convention on Biological Diversity. This means that the respective capabilities have not been considered in a timely manner in policy-making. As such, we propose non-binary “Differentiated But Shared Responsibilities (and Updated Capabilities)” (DBSR-UC) as a new concept, highlighting the need for incentives and burdens based on scientific evidence.