"Not Ours to Own: The Significance of Intergenerational Equity for the Environment"

Written by: Rizkina Aliya - Research and Development ISAFIS 

The Earth is not ours to own. That notion frequently slips our mind as we excavate, extricate, utilize the resources it provides from its surfaces and its deepest cavities indiscriminately for the sake of progress, fulfilling the needs of the present, and the deep pockets of industrialists. Although the Earth is corralled into different regions with diverse backgrounds and interests, regions with the sovereignty to decide what it does upon parts of the Earth within its control, there is a commonality that must be respected when it comes to how we treat the environment. 

A commonality that stems from the idea that humanity will persist into the future as a race and that we are not the ultimate enjoyers of Mother Earth's bounty. The Earth is a common inheritance that can only be maintained through partnership "not only between those who are living but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born" as Edmund Burke once remarked. 

It is much easier to deliver the rights of people whose interests already exist than it is to pay attention to the more abstract interests of people to come. It is no secret that this generation still suffers from inequality in terms of access and distribution to environmental resources and rights, and the popular preexisting axiom is that development should be purported for the sake of this generation. 

However, intergenerational equity is a concept that holds the environment as a common onus of both the present generation and other generations, be it past or future because Earth's environment is an inheritance from previous generations that we will be obliged to pass on (Beder, 2000); thus any actions and policies should be made "without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). Although the argument can be made that future generation may benefit from the economic progress we have achieved through maximizing our natural resources, whatever gains they may receive are cancelled out by environmental deterioration. 

In theory, there are two perspectives on how to view the need to ensure that future generations can supply their needs; through the lenses of "weak sustainability" or "strong sustainability." Weak sustainability sees natural resources from the environment as capital for wealth creation; thus, all should be well when the level of preservation allows future generation to have the same ability to create the same quality and quantity of wealth that we have in the present. 

If we have failed to do so, then the perspective of "weak sustainability" sees that future generations are adequately compensated for the particular environmental loss when it has an alternative source. "Strong sustainability" maintains that environmental assets are not easily substituted simply with alternatives that can act as natural capital for wealth creation. The non-substitutability of environmental resources is due to the understanding that animals, plants, and nature overall have an intrinsic value that once lost cannot be recreated through man-made capital (Beder, 2000). 

There are three basic principles for the application of intergenerational equity. Firstly, each generation should be required to conserve the diversity of the natural resource base to provide future generations with options to satisfy their own needs. This first principle is referred to as "conservation of options." 

Secondly, each generation must maintain the quality of the planet in such a way so that when it is passed down it is in no worse condition than which it was received. This is called the "conservation of quality" and it is to ensure that future generations enjoy a planetary quality that is comparable to that enjoyed by previous generations. Finally, with "conservation of access" each generation should provide its members with equitable rights of access to the natural resources of past generations to improve their own economic and social well-being (Weiss, 1992). 

Intergenerational equity is a universal principle that should supersede the difficulties of sovereign states to have a uniform set of international environmental code. With intergenerational equity in mind, states cannot simply ignore that their actions will not impact the future of its people. In fact, with intergenerational equity as a principle, it adorns weight to decisions made by governments of different states without negating the significance of domestic codes of law and principles (Wibisana, 2014). The principle of intergenerational equity serves as a unified guidance and background to policies and regulations so that states can make concerted efforts to protect the environment.

 A landmark case that acknowledged the principle of intergenerational equity was the case from the Supreme Court of the Philippines titled Minors Oposa v. Factoran. The law suit was made under the name of Juan Antonio Oposa, Anna Rosario Oposa, and Jose Alfonso Oposa. Along with other minors, they were represented by their parents who filed a class action law suit against the state (in this case Factoran, Jr. as Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources of the Philippines). The law suit held the state liable for excessively profiteering from the nation's forests. They view the exploitation as a violation to the constitutional rights of not only this generation but also future generations of the Philippines. The Supreme Court noted that:

"Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generations as well as generations yet unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit... Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come."

The ruling is significant as it gives an otherwise abstract principle shape and form in such a way that it can influence future policy-making and judicial processes. In essence, the Oposa v. Factoran case shows the rest of the world how applying the principle of intergenerational equity in concrete cases gives substantial weight to a state decision, ensuring that the said decision takes into account that the natural resources we have today are by no means only ours to own. 

Intergenerational equity should be precept that we use to approach the pressing issue of climate change as 2017 has been riddled with examples of nature's raw ferocity when it has been altered. Unfortunately, it seems that high-category hurricanes and wind-whipped fires in all corners of the globe are not enough for policy-makers to address the issue of climate change in a progressive way. In fact, one can say that with the clear reticence of the United States to execute international environmental frameworks that are already in place, the world may actually regress in terms of its climate policies.

 Climate change puts all the three aspects of intergenerational equity at risk. The severely altered conditions of the Earth may lead to the depletion of the diversity of natural resources as many species of flora and fauna are unable to adapt to the changes in temperature and extreme weather fluctuations. This means that the options of the future generation when it comes to the natural resource base can be severely diminished. At the same time, major changes to the climate will inadvertently degrade the quality of living conditions in different parts of the world. 

This becomes a problem of equity especially when favorable climates are only afforded to certain parts of the globe while rendering other parts with major difficulties. Harsh climate changes will also impinge upon the welfare of future generations. They will be the ones who bear the brunt of the burden, especially the future generation of developing countries that are expecting worse climate conditions as they would have the least resilience to the changing climate. 

States who are already having difficulties in accessing the resource base may find themselves in a more difficult situation when they are faced with fickle weather patterns. Basically, climate change will only exacerbate the economic division that already exists between states, and perpetuate that disparity into the future (Weiss, Climate Change, Intergenerational Equity, and International Law, 2008). 

Future generations will come and take our place, but on what kind of Earth they stand upon after we have gone will depend upon the choices we make today. Our environmental policies cannot be approached simply by taking into account the needs of the present generation, as the environment's existence will extend beyond our years. Sustaining the planet and all its life-support systems and ecological processes for the welfare is our generation's obligation so that we may ensure equitable rights for generations to come.

References

Beder, S. (2000). Costing the Earth: Equity, Sustainable Development and Environmental Economics. University of Wollonggong.

Weiss, E. B. (1992). Intergenerational equity: a legal framework for global environmental change. In E. B. Weiss, Environmental change and international law: New challenges and dimensions. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

Weiss, E. B. (2008). Climate Change, Intergenerational Equity, and International Law. Georgetown University Law.

Wibisana, A. G. (2014, October). Prinsip-Prinsip Hukum Lingkingan. Depok, Indonesia: Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia.

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future . United Nations .