Intergenerational Equity vs Intragenerational Equity: Fairness across Time and Fairness within Our Time

Sustainable development rests on two kinds of fairness. Intergenerational equity asks whether the present generation is fair to future generations: are we leaving them forests, rivers, a stable climate and mineral wealth, or spending it all now? Intragenerational equity asks whether we are fair to one another today: are the benefits and burdens of development shared fairly between rich and poor, developed and developing countries, cities and villages, and dominant and marginalised groups? Both are recognised in international environmental law and by the Indian Supreme Court.

1. Intergenerational Equity

Intergenerational equity holds that each generation holds the earth in trust for future generations, and is both a beneficiary entitled to use it and a trustee obliged to pass it on in no worse condition. The theory was developed by Edith Brown Weiss (In Fairness to Future Generations, 1989), who proposed three principles:

1. conservation of options: each generation should conserve the diversity of the natural and cultural resource base, so as not to restrict the options of future generations;
2. conservation of quality: each generation should maintain the quality of the planet so that it is passed on in no worse condition than received; and
3. conservation of access: each generation should provide its members with equitable rights of access to the legacy of past generations and conserve this access for future generations.

The principle appears in Principle 1 of the Stockholm Declaration (1972) ('a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations'), the Brundtland definition of sustainable development (1987), Principle 3 of the Rio Declaration (the right to development must equitably meet the needs of present and future generations), and the UNFCCC (Article 3(1)). The Philippine Supreme Court in Minors Oposa v. Factoran (1993) allowed children to sue on behalf of themselves and generations yet unborn to stop logging.

In India, the Supreme Court recognised the principle in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products, (1995) 6 SCC 363, upholding restrictions on forest-based industries to protect forests for future generations; listed it among the salient principles of sustainable development in Vellore (1996); applied it through the public trust doctrine in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997); and in Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2014) used it to require that part of the value of finite mineral resources be saved in a permanent fund for future generations. It is central to climate change law and net-zero targets.

2. Intragenerational Equity

Intragenerational equity requires fairness among people living today: a fair distribution of resources, benefits, and environmental burdens across countries, regions, classes and social groups. It has an international dimension, reflected in common but differentiated responsibilities (Rio Principle 7), the priority to poverty eradication (Rio Principle 5), and the special needs of developing countries (Rio Principle 6); and a national dimension, reflected in environmental justice: the poor, tribal communities and marginalised groups should not bear disproportionate environmental harm, and should share in the benefits of resource use.

Indian law gives effect to intragenerational equity through: the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and PESA, 1996; benefit sharing under the Biological Diversity Act; District Mineral Foundations for mining-affected communities; rehabilitation and resettlement law (Narmada Bachao Andolan, 2000); Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 8 SCC 191 (tribal land not to be transferred for mining); Orissa Mining Corporation (Niyamgiri, 2013) (gram sabha consent); and compensation to poor victims of pollution (Oleum, Bichhri, Vellore).

3. Relationship and Key Differences

The two are complementary parts of sustainable development: the Brundtland definition speaks of meeting the needs of the present (with priority to the poor, an intragenerational idea) without compromising future generations (an intergenerational idea). But they can conflict: strict conservation for the future may deny resources to poor people today (for example, excluding forest dwellers from protected areas), while rapid development to relieve present poverty may exhaust resources needed by the future. Law must balance the two, as in the Forest Rights Act, which combines community use with conservation duties.

4. Related Topics and Provisions