"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: