Indian Legal System > Civil Laws > Environmental Laws > Sustainable Development > Intergenerational Equity Principle
Intergenerational equity refers to equity between generations, which includes the needs of the future generation in the design and implementation of current policies. Thus intergenerational equity simply means a duty of present generation towards future generations i.e. the present generations of human being are obliged to take care of the natural resources and ecology so that all future generations shall also have an equal chance to enjoy the mother nature and right to life.
This preservationist model has deep roots in the original natural-flow theory of English water law, in which upper riparians (People living on the bank of the upper side of the river) could use stream water so long as their use did not impair in any way the quantity or quality of water for those downstream. Ultimately this benefits the last riparians before the stream enters the ocean or disappears because they have no one to whom they owe an obligation. Similarly, the present generation has a right to use and enjoy the resources of the Earth but is under an obligation to take into account the long term impact of its activities and to sustain the resource base and the global environment for the benefit of future generations of humankind.
The idea of inter-generational equity dates as far back as the political philosophy of Immanuel Kant, who developed the idea of posterity benefiting from the work of its ancestors. Edmund Burke also wrote about the idea of inter-generational partnership.
A World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) is formed under chairperson Gro Harlem Brundtland (Former Prime Minister of Norway in December 1983. Hence the Commission is also known as Brundtland Commission. The Commission clearly emphasized the importance of the concept of intergenerational equity. A report was prepared by the Commission which focused upon how today’s unsustainable development can narrow the options available for future generations. Promoting sustainable development requires shutting out as few future options as possible. The theme of the report was It says that “We do not inherit the environment from our ancestors but we borrow it from future generations with no intention or prospect of repaying … We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.”
The theory of intergenerational equity argues that we, the human species, hold the natural environment of our planet in common with all members of our species: past generations, the present generation, and future generations.As members of the present generation, we hold the Earth in trust for future generations. At the same time, we are beneficiaries entitled to use and benefit from it.
Brown Weiss put forward the concept of ‘The Planetary Trust’. He proposed that the planetary trust obligates each generation to preserve the diversity of the resource base and to pass the planet to future generations in no worse condition than it receives it. Thus, the present generation serves both as a trustee for future generations and as a beneficiary of the trust. Thus planetary trust is a fiduciary (trustee-beneficiary) obligation to future generations.’ This relationship imposes on trustees a duty to act for the benefit of beneficiaries with respect to trust matters.
Sustainability is possible only if we look at the Earth and its resources not only as an investment opportunity but as a trust, passed to us by our ancestors, to be enjoyed and passed on to our descendants for their use. Such a “planetary trust” conveys to us both rights and responsibilities. Most importantly, it implies that future generations too have rights – although to be sure, these rights have meaning only if we the living respect them and if this respect transcends the differences among countries, religions, and cultures.
Basic Principles of Intergenerational Equity:
We can say that there are three basic principles of intergenerational equity. These principles of intergenerational equity form the basis of a set of intergenerational obligations and rights, planetary rights and obligations that are held by each generation. These rights and responsibilities derive from each generation’s position as part of the inter-temporal object of human society.
Principle of Conservation of Options:
Each generation should be required to preserve the diversity of the natural and cultural resource base, so that it does not excessively restrict the options available to future generations in solving their problems and satisfying their own values, and should also be allowed to diversity comparable to that enjoyed by previous generations.
Principle of Conservation of Equality:
Each generation should be required to maintain the quality of the planet so that it is passed on in no worse condition than in which it was received, and should also be entitled to planetary quality comparable to that enjoyed by previous generations.
Principle of Conservation of Access:
Each generation should provide its members with equitable rights of access to the legacy of past generations and should conserve this access for future generations.
Drawback of Doctrine of Intergenerational Equity:
- It is unclear how far into the future these obligations stretch. It would seem insufficient to restrict concern to the next generation only, as many environmental problems or processes work on a very long term scale.
- Another very difficult political issue, namely how future generations can be given some form of voice or consideration in present policymaking.
- It is difficult to find out what the interests or needs of future generations will be
- Environmental management tasks, such as planning, monitoring, and evaluation, typically do not fit in with the longer-term period needed to take account of future generations. Hence the considerations of inter-generational equity require a considerable extension of the time scale of current planning and policymaking models and practices.
Case Laws:
In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC 359, 364, case, the Court, observed that “It has always to be remembered that environmental assets are permanent assets of mankind and are not intended to be exhausted in one generation”.
In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products (1995) 6 SCC 363, 382, the Court recognized the significance of the concept of Sustainable Development and Intergenerational equity once again.
In S. Jagannath v. Union of India, (1997)2 SCC 87, 146, case, commonly known as shrimp farming culture case, the Court dealt with the problem of pollution caused by shrimp farming culture industries in coastal areas. The Court opined that there must be an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) before granting permission to install commercial shrimp farms, and such assessment must take into consideration the inter-generational equity.
In A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof M V. Nayudu, (1999) 2 SCC 718, case, the Court for the first time discussed the principle of intergenerational equity in some detail and opined that the principle is of recent origin. Referring to the Stockholm Declaration, 1972, Jagannadha Rao, J. noted that several international conventions and treaties had recognized the principle of inter-generational equity and that several imaginative proposals such as the locus standi of individuals or groups to take out actions as representatives of future generations, appointment of ombudsman to take care of the rights of the future against the present, had come up.
Conclusion:
It is the duty of present generations to hold the natural resources in trust and maintain their usefulness for future generations to ensure Sustainable Development. The interests of future generations impose a cost on people living now, it can be explained with the following examples.
- Abating greenhouse gas emissions lower current well-being but leaves future generations with a better climate.
- Preserving biodiversity lowers current well-being but widens options for future generations.
- Exploiting soil and water resources with caution also lowers current well-being but increases the potential for future food production.
- Using antibiotics with care lowers current well-being but reduces future health problems.
It may be concluded that the Court though recognized the principle of intergenerational equity in few cases decided by it, never tried to explain the nature, scope, and meaning of the principle and, therefore, there is an ambiguity regarding the principle.
Previous Topic: Meaning of Sustainable Development
Next Topic: Precautionary Principle