Indian Constitution defines “Right to Equality” guaranteed under Article 14, as; “Equality before law,” and reads as follows, “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” (Singhvi, 2008) Article 14 read along-with Article 21 i.e. ‘Right to life,’ has acquired a much broader meaning with the broadest possible concept of equality among all. This concept of equality certainly extends to ‘equal rights for all people to enjoyment and use of nature’s gifts.’ The Indian Supreme Court has upheld it many a times and often interpreted this right as overriding the rights of artificial juristic persons, i.e. corporate engaged in purely economic activities. The question to be considered here is, “Is this right to equality is limited to people living/existing presently or does this right extend and transcend future generations too?” Is it to be inferred that a person yet to be born after 200 years also have the same right over nature? Does this mean that equality has to be maintained across generations too? Therefore, is this inter-generational equality not only a basic human-right but also an enforceable legislative and constitutional right? Can we monetize and attach a notional value to something which does not belong to us? How can a future generation, due to come after 200 or 500 years ensure equality with present generation? Is this inter-generational ‘Right to Equality’ enforceable, and can it be effectively legislated? How can the levels of this inter-generational equality be calculated?

1. Hemant Goswami
hemant@citizenrights.info

2.  The very concept of “Ecosystem Services” is
based on the premise that nature is meant to
provide services to human beings and
consequentially, providing happiness to
human beings. The concept is deficient on
many accounts;
 The new semantics of „Ecology,‟
describing it as „Service,‟ misleads and
does not address or focuses attention on
the comprehensive ecological approach

3.  It‟s purely an „Economic Model‟ with all the assumptions of an imperfect estimation
of economic theories and systems. Nature can‟t be capitalized in economic models.
It‟s beyond human comprehension.
 The “Ecosystem Services” model is based on limited understanding we have of the
nature‟s phenomenon, bio-diversity and inter-relationship among all matters and
beings. Weaving a system with broad assumption sitting atop another set of
assumptions, highly biased in favour of human consumption needs, can never yield
any long-term sustainable model.
 The “Ecosystem Services” in its execution promotes monetizing of nature. It helps
businesses and not the rest of the 99.9% people of the world. Banking of ecology is
an extremely bad idea and against the concept of inter-generational equality. Long
term sustainable results come not just from preserving but also limiting
consumption. Approach to limit consumption is missing in the suggested solutions
through “Ecosystem Services.”
 The “Ecosystem Services” concept has purely anthropocentric approach; which is
extremely deficient. Micro environment weaved around all other life forms can‟t be
ignored.
 The calculations of the “Ecosystem Services” are based on „The Present‟ and a brief
extended period of a couple of future generations. It does not take into account the
long-term future. The concept of „Intergenerational Equality‟ is entirely missing
from the concept “Ecosystem Services.”

4.  The concept of „Equality‟ has been the core to the
philosophy of „Democracy‟ and the most basic
„Human Rights.‟ Most countries have a well-meaning
definition of „Equality‟ within their constitution.
 Indian Constitution defines “Right to Equality”
guaranteed under Article 14, as; “Equality before
law,” and reads as follows, “The State shall not deny
to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
(Singhvi, 2008) Article 14 read along-with Article 21
i.e. „Right to life,‟ has acquired a much broader
meaning with the broadest possible concept of
equality among all.

5.  Is this right to equality is limited to people living/existing
presently or does this right extend and transcend future
generations too?
 Is it to be inferred that a person yet to be born after 200
years also have the same right over nature? Does this mean
that equality has to be maintained across generations too?
 Is this inter-generational equality not only a basic human-
right but also an enforceable legislative and constitutional
right?
 Can we monetize and attach a notional value to something
which does not belong to us?
 How can a future generation, due to come after 200 or 500
years ensure equality with present generation?
 Is this inter-generational „Right to Equality‟
enforceable, and can it be effectively legislated?
 How can the levels of this inter-generational equality be
calculated?

6.  The basic idea of monetizing the natural and
ecological resources based on hypothetical and
abstract calculations based on GNP and GDP
 The current economic models and the cost-
calculation tools do not properly value and
estimate the effective cost of the natural
resources and ecological material.
 Example:
 Fossil Fuel – Petrol undervalued 2000 times
 Agriculture – Environmental cost does not justify
forced increase in yield

7. All the current tools of cost estimation suggested by “Ecosystem
Services” are deficient in calculating the actual cost. It‟s actually a
misappropriation and a theft from the account of the future generations

8.  The scenario in Punjab is no different from any other
State of India. However Punjab is of special
importance if one considers that Punjab is said to be
the bread-basket of India.
 Punjab has been using a very high level of chemical
fertilizer and pesticide and its consumption is
growing exponentially, year-after-year. Punjab is one
of the highest users of both, chemical fertilizers and
pesticides. Punjab accounts for almost 10 % of the
total fertilizer consumption in the country in just
2.98 % of the cultivated area and 4.2 % of cropped
area of India. It also uses highest amount of fertilizer
per hectare (192.5 kg/ ha) followed by Haryana
(166.2) as compared to average use of 88.2 kg/ha in
India.

9.  Water: The water in Punjab is not only polluted but
the water table has gone down to an alarming level.
The quality of water has reduced drastically with
pesticide and chemical contamination found across
Punjab.
 Flaura- Fauna and Loss of Biodiversity: Punjab has
lost most of its genetic resource. The cropland
ecosystem was known to harbour great genetic
variability. However, over the years this has reduced.
 Soil and Micro-Organisms: The soil in Punjab is also
in a bad shape. Over exploitation has led to nutrient
depletion and combined with water-logging has
increased soil salinity. Over use of pesticides has also
negatively impacted soil quality in
Punjab, consumption of chemical fertilizers has
witnessed an eightfold increase

10.  In a nutshell, the whole ecological crisis is a
result of greed and not human need.
 The current economic model has resulted in
many imbalances, including changes brought in
the work/ labour patterns, mass
migration, creation of unnecessary cosmetic
needs, unnecessary movement of goods and raw
material, loss of many productive
activities, monoculture of thoughts and
ideas, etc. All this has resulted in over-
consumption and created immense pressure on
the ecology and all form of natural resources.
 The actual solution lies in reversing the pattern
by stopping over consumption.

11.  Needless to say that such a model is
unsustainable and disastrous. It does not
change anything. It only guarantees an
uninterrupted supply to the industry.
 Till the time the world can ensure just
consumption in proportion to the shares of
the present generation in terms of long-term
inter-generational equality, mankind will
remain on slippery slope; racing towards its
own destruction. Austerity in consumption in
all forms is the only solution; increasing
productivity is not.

12.  Following needs to be ensured;
 Valuating natural and biological resources on
complete cost calculated on inter-generational
actual and opportunity cost.
 Using sustainable, replenishable methods and
processes of consumption; in the event of any
form of loss to nature (including killing of so-
called pests, insects, etc.), factoring the loss to
the nature also in the total cost of production
and pricing it accordingly.
 Capping and limiting the unnecessary
consumption by discouraging unnecessary
creation of need and its demand.

13.  Allow, accept and promote alternate definition
and ideas of “good life,” “development,”
“progress” etc.
 Reducing and capping the size of artificial juristic
person, i.e. the corporate. Limiting their
geographical operations too wherever necessary.
 Refusing and rejecting all kinds of proprietary
control/ ownership on ecological resources or
biological material in the form of Patents or any
other variation of intellectual property rights.

14.  Avoiding transportation of raw material and
finished goods by promoting local operations.
Increasing the cost of transportation to the true
price of the natural resource used in terms of
inter-generational cost, especially the cost of
fossil fuel.
 Ensuring legislative measures of inter-
generational equality and putting a prohibitive
cost to violation along-with immediate
incapacitation of the violators.
 As a broad guideline, the thumb rule should be to
consume only that much in one‟s life-time which
can be replenished in such time-frame.

15.  Is the world really bothered about the future
and willing to accept legislation for ensuring
inter-generational equality of natural
resources?
 Would corporate, who actually control the
world governments, willing to reduce
consumption?

16. Thank
you
Your Questions
Hemant Goswami
Mail : GPO Box 137, Sector 17, Chandigarh INDIA – 160 017
E-Mail : email@hemant.org