Intergenerational Equity:

It signifies the rights and interests of the present and future generation regarding the renewable and
non-renewable resources of earth.

Many contemporary international instruments deals with the use of the resources available and to
make them available for future generation. People have recognized the value and importance of the
resources available and what may happen in future if the resources will not be available.

The concept of sustainable development has been introduced which refers the use of resources
should be done in such a manner that those resources shall also be available to meet the future
needs.

United Nation General Assembly has defined sustainable development as the development which
meets the needs of the present without compromising with the availability of resources to meet the
needs of the future generation.

Sustainable development provides not only man-made wealth but it also provides wealth made by
nature. It also concerned about the quality of life of the human beings, man-made wealth continues
improvement of quality of life but it must be supported by the natural wealth.

Sustainable development was introduced for the first time by the United Nations with a view to
accomplish three aspects of development, those are, environmental protection, economic
development and social development, this is affirmed by the United Nation Development Program.

United Nation concentrating on managing and protecting the natural resources for the development
of social and economical aspects, this is much required to accomplish the goals of the concept of
sustainable development.  

One of the primary object of the concept of intergenerational equity is the development of resources
by one generation enhance the opportunity of economic sustainability for the future generation.

Intergenerational equity contains inter-temporal implications in respect of the utilization of the

resources, it tends to a fair utilization of resources by human generations in past, present and future,
it tries to construct a balance of consumption of resources by existing societies and the future
generations.

Inter-temporal aspects tries to make a balance between the distribution of resources and recycling of
resources to a good extend, which is a very concerning issue due to the growing degradation of
environment and depletion of resources.  
This concept has been supported by the domestic laws, The decision of the Supreme court of
Philippines in the case of Minors Oposa v Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, was that each generation has the responsibility for future generations to preserve natural
resources for full enjoyment of the natural ecology. The concept of intergenerational equity promotes
socio-economic development and it makes a bridge between social and economic development with
environmental protection.

The development of sustainable development as a customary international law is also has been
described by the Vice President of ICJ, in Gabeikovo-Nagvmaros Project, they claimed that
sustainable development is not a concept, it is far ahead of that, as it has become the modern
customary international law.

3rd principle of Rio declaration mentioned about the concept of intergenerational equity, it was stated
that development must be done in such a manner, as it equably meet the environmental and
developmental needs of the present as well as the future generation.

The main object of this principal is that to make sure the rights of the future generation upon the non-
renewable resources, which might be abused by the present generation.

15th Principal of the Rio declaration has been documented as the most significant part as to
sustainable development; it states that as per the capabilities of the states, precautionary steps
should be taken by the states to ensure the protection of the environment. Any stride which may
cause environmental degradation should be neglected.  In other words it can be said that the
legislation and the appropriate government is empowered to prevent and attack the reasons of
environmental degradation.  

In the 16th Principal of the Rio declaration it is stated that the National Powers should emphasis the
promotion of the internationalization of environmental cost and the use of fiscal instrument, in
principal, the polluter should be responsible for the restoration of such pollution and the polluter may
be compelled to compensate for that environmental degradation.

Intra-Generational Equity:

Intra-generational equity is different from intergenerational equity.

It deals with the equality among the same generations as far as the utilization of resources are
concern. It includes fair utilization of global resources among the human beings of the present
generation. The concept of intra-generational equity provides rights and duties to every person of a
single generation to use and take care of the renewable and non-renewable resources moderately
among the members of the generation.

In a developing country like India the rule of itragenerational equity is applicable to certain extend, as
in this kind of developing countries more resources are required for development of the country and
to ensure economic stability. Industrialization is the key for the development of these countries which
requires more and more renewable and non renewable resources, in that that the legislature must
enact strict environmental laws in relation to the implementation of the rules specified in the doctrine
of intra-generational equity, and it must be firmly interpreted by the judiciary system of the nation.
The administration of every country must be very conscious regarding the implementation of the
rules framed by the legislature in relation to the protection of environment and the laws related to the
execution of the rules in respect of the intra-generational equity. The resources which are not
preserved for the future generation and are available for the current generation must be equally
distributed among all the members of the present generation. To a certain extend it becomes very
difficult regulate those resources among all the members of the generation due to national territories,
international provinces, condition of the international society and many more, but it may be done
impliedly, globalization can make things better and easier for proper implementation of the doctrine.

Intergenerational equity and intra-generational equity both requires sustainability. Proper distribution
of renewable and non-renewable resources is the key of the concept of sustainable development.
Where intergenerational equity tries to distribute among present and future generation; intra-
generational equity deals with the distribution of resources between the members of the same
generation.  Due to the lack of proper execution of the doctrine of sustainable development, the
present environment of the entire earth is in question, the rule of intergenerational equity and intra-
generational equity must be followed to save the world from the present situation, global warming is
one of the main reasons for degradation of the environment, it not only harms the environment of
earth but also injures surviving ability of the living creature.

intragenerational equity
 Environmental Governance

DEFINITION(S)

Intragenerational equity is concerned with equity between people of the same generation and aims
to assure justice among human beings that are alive today, as reflected in Rio Principle 6,
mandating particular priority for the special situation and needs of developing countries, particularly
the least developed and those most environmentally vulnerable. (Oxford Handbook of International
Environmental Law, chapter 1 - Equity, D. Shelton, 2008)
The special situation and needs of developing countries, particularly the least developed and those
most environmentally vulnerable, shall be given special priority. International actions in the field of
environment and development should also address the interests and needs of all countries. (Rio
Principle 6)

Sustainable Development
SHARE THIS
Sustainable development has been defined in many ways, but the most frequently
quoted definition is from Our Common Future , also known as the Brundtland Report:

"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the

present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs."

Common but Differentiated

Responsibilities and
Respective Capabilities (CBDR-
RC)
Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities
(CBDR–RC) is a principle within the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that acknowledges the different capabilities
and differing responsibilities of individual countries in addressing climate
change.

The principle of CBDR–RC is enshrined in the 1992 UNFCCC treaty, which

was ratified by all participating countries. The text of the convention reads: “…
the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation
by all countries and their participation in an effective and appropriate
international response, in accordance with their common but differentiated
responsibilities and respective capabilities and their social and economic
conditions.”
CBDR-RC has served as a guiding principle as well as a source of contention
in the UN climate negotiations.

Reflecting CBDR-RC, the Convention divided countries into “Annex I” and

“non-Annex I,” the former generally referring to developed countries and the
latter to developing countries. Under the Convention Annex I countries have a
greater mitigation role than non Annex-I countries.

Since 1992 countries like China have gained new capabilities while
maintaining relatively low per capita emissions, and tensions about the
defined lines of the Annex I and non-Annex I countries have arisen. CBDR-RC
and the annex classifications were codified in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and
Annex I country emissions reductions were legally bound. A primary driver for
the failure of the U.S. to ratify the Kyoto Protocol was the domestic concern
that middle-income developing countries were not required to take action to
address their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions despite their growing
capability.
In the years following the 1992 treaty, the trajectory of emissions in populous
developing countries also drew attention. Fossil fuel–based development by
heavily populated developing countries would prevent stabilization of GHG
concentrations – the agreed upon “ultimate objective” of the UNFCCC –
because much of the global emissions budget has already been exhausted by
emissions from developed countries.  Controversy ensued over the question
of responsibility for the costs entailed in switching to a sustainable
development path, particularly for large but poor countries with very low per-
capita emissions and very little access to finance.  

However, in more recent UNFCCC agreements – starting with Durban in 2011

– Parties have changed their position to allow for countries to individually
determine their “contribution” to addressing GHG emissions. This new climate
agreement is to be “applicable to all,” and approaches differentiation through
the implementation of a bottom–up scheme to determine a global effort.
CBDR-RC remains a sticking point, as does the role of equity (historic versus
current responsibility for climate change), the role of Annexes, and the role
each country should play in in UNFCCC climate negotiations. In the 2014
negotiations in Lima, Parties agreed on a new phrase, ‘common but
differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in light of different
 national circumstances,’ perhaps hinting at how an agreement in Paris would
address the issue.

Common but differentiated

responsibilities
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

WRITTEN BY: 

 Charlotte Epstein
See Article History
Alternative Title: CBDR

Common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), principle of

international environmental law establishing that all states are responsible for
addressing global environmental destruction yet not equally responsible. The
principle balances, on the one hand, the need for all states to take
responsibility for global environmental problems and, on the other hand, the
need to recognize the wide differences in levels of economic development
between states. These differences in turn are linked to the states’
contributions to, as well as their abilities to address, these problems. CBDR
was formalized in international law at the 1992 United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro.
CBDR resolves a tension between two older notions of environmental
governance. On the one hand, the idea of a “common responsibility” spoke
directly to the notion of “common heritage of mankind,” acknowledged by a
1967 UN resolution that had first emerged as an expression of concern for the
loss of natural resources belonging to all (especially maritime, such as whales
and tuna). The 1992 UN negotiations were organized around the four key
themes of climate change, deforestation, desertification, and biodiversity
degradation—environmental problems whose global repercussions brought
home the need for a collective response, which needed in turn to be grounded
in a common responsibility. In legal terms, CBDR describes the shared
obligation of two or more states toward the protection of a particular
environmental resource. On the other hand, the need to establish variegated
levels at which different states can effectively enter into a collective response,
according to both their capacities and their levels of contribution to the
problem, had been recognized since the first UN conference on
the environment, in 1972 (it was featured explicitly in the Stockholm
Declaration).
At the practical level, CBDR emerged at the 1992 conference as a
compromise between the positions of developed and developing countries
with regard to environmental protection. It aims at bringing about the
conditions of environmental governance that, to be effective, need to be
as inclusive as possible. At the ethical level, it is an expression of general
principles of equity in international law. It recognizes the historical correlation
between higher levels of development and a greater contribution to
the degradation of global environmental resources, such as water and air, and
enables the sharing of responsibility accordingly. It establishes that developed
countries, which had been able to develop for longer times unimpeded by
environmental restrictions, now need to take a greater share of responsibility.

The various occurrences of the CBDR in international legal texts include

the Rio Declaration, where it is enunciated as “Principle 7,” and the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, together with its
1997 Kyoto Protocol. It was retroactively incorporated into the Vienna
Convention and Montreal Protocol on substances that destroy the ozone
layer. Practically, it entails the deferral of developing
countries’ compliance with the objectives of these environmental conventions.
Facts Matter. Support the truth and unlock all of Britannica’s content.Start
Your Free Trial Today
CBDR is not unanimously accepted among developed countries. At the Rio
negotiations it was rejected by the United States, which has since conditioned
its participation in any restrictive scheme on a specific commitment from
developing countries to participate as well (the 1997 Byrd-Hagel Resolution).
As a result of this lack of consensus, CBDR has been relatively sidelined in
environmental governance debates.

Precautionary principle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) generally defines actions on issues
considered to be uncertain, for instance applied in assessing risk management.[1]The principle is
used by policy makers to justify discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of
harm from making a certain decision (e.g. taking a particular course of action) when extensive
scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social
responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a
plausible risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide
sound evidence that no harm will result.
In some legal systems, as in law of the European Union, the application of the precautionary
principle has been made a statutory requirement in some areas of law.[2]
Regarding international conduct, the first endorsement of the principle was in 1982 when the World
Charter for Nature was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, while its first international
implementation was in 1987 through the Montreal Protocol. Soon after, the principle integrated with
many other legally binding international treaties such as the Rio Declaration and Kyoto Protocol.

Many definitions of the precautionary principle exist: Precaution may be defined as "caution in
advance", "caution practised in the context of uncertainty", or informed prudence. Two ideas lie at
the core of the principle:[7]:34

1. an expression of a need by decision-makers to anticipate harm before it occurs. Within this

element lies an implicit reversal of the onus of proof: under the precautionary principle it is
the responsibility of an activity-proponent to establish that the proposed activity will not (or is
very unlikely to) result in significant harm.
2. the concept of proportionality of the risk and the cost and feasibility of a proposed action.
One of the primary foundations of the precautionary principle, and globally accepted definitions,
results from the work of the Rio Conference, or "Earth Summit" in 1992. The principle 15 of the Rio
Declaration notes: "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely
applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible
damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective
measures to prevent environmental degradation."[8]
The 1998 Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle summarises the principle this way:
"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary
measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established
scientifically."[9] The Wingspread Conference on the Precautionary Principle was convened by the
Science and Environmental Health Network.[9]
In February 2000, the Commission of the European Communities noted in a Communication from
the Commission on the Precautionary Principle that, "The precautionary principle is not defined in
the Treaties of the European Union, which prescribes it [the Precautionary Principle] only once – to
protect the environment. But in practice, its scope is much wider, and specifically where preliminary-
objective-scientific-evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern that
potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or [and] plant health may be
inconsistent with the high level of protection [for what] chosen for the Community." [10]:10
The January 2000 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety says, in regard to controversies over GMOs:
"Lack of scientific certainty due to insufficient relevant scientific information ... shall not prevent the
Party of [I]mport, in order to avoid or minimize such potential adverse effects, from taking a decision,
as appropriate, with regard to the import of the living modified organism in question." [11]:6
Polluter pays principle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

In environmental law, the polluter pays principle is enacted to make the party responsible for

producing pollution responsible for paying for the damage done to the natural environment. It is
regarded as a regional custom because of the strong support it has received in most Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and European Union countries. It is a
fundamental principle in US environmental law.

The 'polluters pays' principle is the commonly accepted practice that those who
produce pollution should bear the costs of managing it to prevent damage to
human health or the environment. For instance, a factory that produces a
potentially poisonous substance as a byproduct of its activities is usually held
responsible for its safe disposal.

This principle underpins most of the regulation of pollution affecting land, water
and air. Pollution is defined in UK law as contamination of the land, water or air
by harmful or potentially harmful substances.
Part of a set of broader principles to guide sustainable development worldwide
(formally known as the 1992 Rio Declaration), the polluter pays principle has also
been applied more specifically to emissions of greenhouse gases which
cause climate change.

Greenhouse gas emissions are considered a form of pollution because they cause
potential harm and damage through impacts on the climate. However, in this
case, because society has been slow to recognise the link between greenhouse
gases and climate change, and because the atmosphere is considered by some to
be a 'global commons' (that everyone shares and has a right to use), emitters are
generally not held responsible for controlling this form of pollution.

However, it is possible to implement the 'polluter pays' principle through a so-

called carbon price. As we'll discuss in future questions in this series, this
imposes a charge on the emission of greenhouse gases equivalent to the
corresponding potential cost caused through future climate change. In this way, a
financial incentive is created for a factory, for instance, to minimise its costs by
reducing emissions.

Many economists argue a carbon price should be global and uniform across

countries and sectors so that polluters do not simply move operations to so-called
'pollution havens' – countries where a lack of environmental regulation allows
them to continue to pollute without restrictions.

What is the polluter pays principle?

 11 May, 2018
The ‘polluter pays’ principle is the commonly accepted practice that those who produce pollution
should bear the costs of managing it to prevent damage to human health or the environment. For
instance, a factory that produces a potentially poisonous substance as a by-product of its
activities is usually held responsible for its safe disposal. The polluter pays principle is part of a
set of broader principles to guide sustainable development worldwide (formally known as
the 1992 Rio Declaration).
This principle underpins most of the regulation of pollution affecting land, water and air.
Pollution is defined in UK law as contamination of the land, water or air by harmful or
potentially harmful substances.

Why should the principle be applied to greenhouse gas emissions?

Greenhouse gas emissions are considered a form of pollution because they cause potential harm
and damage through impacts on the climate, and also contribute to air pollution that the World
Health Organisation estimates causes almost 12% of global deaths in 2012. But because society
has been slow to recognise the link between how human activities have increased the rates of
greenhouse gases emissions that can cause the climate to change, emitters are generally not held
responsible for controlling this form of pollution. When the pollution cost from the release of
greenhouse gases is not imposed on emitters,  these costs are thus ‘externalised’ to society,
representing what economists describe as a ‘market failure’. Society bears these costs as
greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere, which is described a ‘global commons’ as
everyone shares and has the right to use.
Applying the principle through a carbon tax or emissions trading system
The polluter pays principle can be applied to greenhouse gas emitters through a so-called carbon
price. This imposes a charge on the emission of greenhouse gases equivalent to the
corresponding potential cost caused through future climate change – thus forcing emitters to
internalise the cost of pollution. In this way, a financial incentive is created for a factory, for
instance, to minimise its pollution costs by reducing emissions.
The carbon price can make the polluter pay through two different policy instruments. The first is
a straightforward price-based mechanism in the form of a carbon tax, where the price of
pollution is determined by the rate of the tax for each tonne of greenhouse gas emitted. The
second form is through a quota-based system, often referred to as a cap-and-trade, or emissions
trading system. This sets a cap, or limit, on the maximum level of emissions for a given time
period, and distributes permits or allowances for each unit of greenhouse gas among firms that
produce emissions. Some firms find it easier or cheaper to reduce emissions than others, and can
thus sell permits to firms whose cost for reducing emissions is much higher. Therefore the
trading takes place between high-cost and low-cost polluters, thereby determining the price of a
polluting permit. The polluters have ‘paid’ through ensuring they have enough permits to cover
the amount of emissions they have emitted for the given year.

Could a uniform carbon price be effective?

Regardless of which type of instrument is used, many economists argue a carbon price should be
global and uniform across countries and sectors (PDF) so that polluters do not simply move
operations to so-called ‘pollution havens’ – countries where a lack of environmental regulation
enables them to continue to pollute without restrictions. The Report of the High-Level
Commission on Carbon Prices (PDF) (2017) estimated that the appropriate carbon price across
the world will need to be US$40–80/tCO2e by 2020, and US$50–100/tCO2e by 2030, to be
consistent with meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement. For jurisdictions that use a carbon tax,
this would require directly setting the rate at the appropriate carbon price. However, this has
often been politically difficult to impose. For jurisdictions that have an emissions trading system,
a tighter cap can be imposed to restrict the supply of permits, and thus indirectly increase the
carbon price to a level that is in line with the Paris Agreement.