Is CBDR-RC still relevant in a world where emerging economies are major emitters? Argue with reference to India's stand.

Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC) is written into the UNFCCC (1992). It places a heavier climate burden on countries that have emitted more over time and have more capacity to act. Emerging economies' current emissions have risen, but CBDR-RC is still relevant. What needs to change is how it is applied, not the principle itself.

Why CBDR-RC remains relevant: India's stand

• Historical responsibility: India ties the duty to pay to cumulative emissions, not to today's annual output [3].
• Legal anchor: Under Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement, developed countries "shall provide" finance. India says the NCQG left out Article 9.1 and was adopted "despite India's objection" [3].
• Finance gap: Developing countries will need USD 310–365 billion a year for adaptation by 2035. That is 12–14 times what flows now. International public adaptation finance actually fell, from USD 28 billion to USD 26 billion (2022–23) [4].
• Debt trap: Most climate finance comes as loans. India warns that without enough finance "even the proposed NDCs would not fructify" [3].
• Against uniformity: At Pre-COP31 (Fiji, 2026), India asked that Equity and CBDR-RC be upheld "in letter and spirit". It rejected any "one-size-fits-all" pathway [1].

The counter-view

• The NCQG's USD 1.3 trillion call is aimed at all actors, public and private. It also invites developing countries to contribute voluntarily [5].
• India itself now acts as a provider. It has offered ISRO-based shoreline monitoring and early warning to Pacific islands [1], which blurs the old line between givers and receivers.
• Priorities within the Global South differ. The LDCs want adaptation finance at least tripled by 2030, mainly as grants [2], while India wants equal weight for mitigation.

Reconciling the two: the "RC" half

• "Respective Capabilities" lets contributions grow as capacity grows. India's voluntary South–South help is based on capability, not legal liability [1].
• Clear rules on what counts towards the USD 300 billion goal should be agreed before the Standing Committee on Finance's first progress report in 2028 [5].
• India could support the LDCs' demand for grant-based adaptation finance [2] to keep Global South solidarity intact.

CBDR-RC therefore remains the moral and legal backbone of climate justice; only its application has to adapt. If India insists on the Article 9.1 obligations while expanding voluntary capability-based support, it can turn equity, in line with SDG 13, into the basis of a credible outcome at COP31 in Antalya.