In addition to the "Action Plan," the Stockholm Conference was expected to produce a "Declaration on the Human Environment." This document would constitute the first attempt by the nations of the world to agree on principles of international behavior and responsibility on which effective management of global resources could be based.

Its importance would rest on the principle that governments accept the responsibility for the effect of their activities on the environment of others and of the oceans and atmosphere beyond national jurisdiction. It would be designed to set forth guiding principles for world environmental initiative.

The third and most important result anticipated from the Conference was to be the creation of a permanent United Nations environmental unit which would coordinate international activities and give the Conference's recommendations some chance of being translated into action.

The United States during the March meetings of the 4th Preparatory Conference introduced a resolution which would establish this environmental unit as a subsidiary of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

At the time of its introduction, the U.S. resolution was well received and the Conference was expected to adopt a measure similar in form. Early in the preparatory period it was decided that the "Vienna formula" would be utilized to determine which nations would be invited to attend the Stockholm Conference. According to this formula, only those countries which were members of the United Nations or its affiliated agencies would be permitted to attend. Under this rule. the Federal Republic of Germany was able to play an active role in the activities of the Conference while the German Democratic Republic (GDR) was excluded. In an effort to emphasize their dissatisfaction with this situation, the governments of the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia boycotted the entire sessions of the March Preparatory meetings and threatened to avoid the entire Conference.

The United States maintained the position that the Environmental Conference should not be used to bring about a change in the political status of East Germany. Christian A. Herter, Jr., Vice-Chairman of the U.S. Delegation, stated the U.S. position at a press conference on March 10, 1972:

***Political decisions of this kind are for negotiation between the states concerned and for the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council. For this reason the three Western powers with responsibility for Germany oppose the efforts which have been made to misuse the Stockholm Conference as a vehicle for the advancement of the GDR's political interests by seeking to overturn the decision of the United Nations General Assembly.

In May 1972, East Germany made an attempt to gain admittance to the Conference by joining the World Health Organization. While agreeing that the "environmental crisis" was a world problem affecting all nations, the United States still insisted that the Stockholm Conference should not be utilized to bring about a change in the political status of East Germany. As a result of the U.S. opposition, the GDR's

attempt to gain admittance to the Conference was defeated by a vote of 70 to 28 with 25 abstentions.

However, in view of the importance of the Stockholm Conference, the United States, representing the three Western powers with responsibility for Germany, set forth a formula whereby experts from the GDR could attend and participate in the Conference. Although this formula did not grant East Germany voting participation, it did provide that:

(a) The GDR would be free to determine the size, level and composition of its delegation.

(6) The GDR Delegation would have the right to speak and to have its documents circulated by the Conference Secretariat so long as these documents dealt with the substantive work of the Conference.

This formula was rejected. As a result the U.S.S.R. and the Socialist countries of Eastern Europe with the exception of Romania and Yugoslavia refused to attend the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment. This bloc of nations represented approximately a quarter of the world's industrial capacity and its absence from the deliberations considerably weakened the impact of the Conference's recommendations.

THE "ACTION PLAN"

The "Action Plan for the Human Environment," as actually adopted, consists of approximately 200 recommendations for national and international action. It attempts to provide a "blueprint" or framework for future environmental agreements.

Any undertaking of this nature can be expected to generate a great deal of criticism for excluding matters which some feel are essential. While the criticisms in some cases are valid, we believe the positive aspects that the "Plan" proposes outweigh its shortcomings in light of the initial nature of the Conference. Therefore, we will highlight only those adopted recommendations which in our opinion seem to be significant achievements.

The first achievement was the adoption of the so-called "Earthwatch" monitoring system, through which the pollution of the world can be continuously assessed. The major elements of this system involve:

1. The establishment of 10 baseline stations to measure the longterm global trends which may ultimately cause climatic changes. These stations would be established in remote areas far from any sources of pollution. The United States plans to operate four of these stations. Two are already in operation at the South Pole and in Hawaii and funds have been provided for two more-one at Point Barrow, Alaska and the other in American Samoa. Although the Soviet Union boycotted the Conference because of the exclusion of East Germany, it indicated that it would be willing to operate three stations. Canada would maintain the remaining three.

2. The establishment of 100 additional stations to monitor the air quality on a regional basis. So far, the United States and Russia have offered to operate 10 stations each, Canada has offered to operate seven, Kenya one, and the Western European coun

83-393-72- -2

tries 21. This atmospheric monitoring program has been developing during the past two years and will be coordinated by the World Meteorological Association. During the debate on these recommendations a number of developing countries expressed concern that these stations might be utilized for "subversive purposes." In order to dispel these fears and to assure these countries that their national sovereignty would not be violated, a phrase was inserted into the recommendation guaranteeing that these stations would be established only "with the consent of the countries concerned."

3. The establishment of water borne stations to measure contaminants in major rivers, lakes and seas.

4. The establishment of research centers and biological centers. to analyze changes in soil conditions and plant and animal life. Another achievement of the Conference "Action Plan" was the adoption of the recommendation urging the establishment of a system for an international registry of chemicals. This proposal was particularly important to the Western European countries which are seeking a system whereby they can keep a record of the new chemicals. which are being placed in their rivers and seas each year. Under this system, an expert group of scientists would conduct annual reviews of all harmful substances and would assess the risk to the environment. It is hoped that this data will ultimately lead to the establishment of international guidelines for the control of major sources of water pollution.

In addition to the "Earthwatch" system another achievement of the "Action Plan" was the adoption of a recommendation to consider a 10-year moratorium on worldwide commercial whaling. This recommendation was designed to bring pressure on the 14 national International Whaling Commission which met in London. Although this recommendation was hailed as a major achievement, in actual effect it failed to stimulate agreement in London. Almost 80 percent (35,000 out of 42,000) of the worldwide catch last year was brought in by Russian and Japanese whaling fleets. These fleets are expensively equipped and represent a multi-million dollar business. It should be noted that Russia boycotted the Conference and the Japanese abstained from voting on this recommendation. And it was these countries that blocked a moratorium agreement in London.

A joint Peru-New Zealand resolution was adopted which condemned the testing of all nuclear weapons and called upon all nations to cancel future testing in order to prevent further contamination of the environment. This resolution was aimed at France, which is currently conducting atmospheric nuclear tests in the South Pacific. The vote was 48 to 2, with France and China voting against it. The U.S. was among 14 nations abstaining. Its Delegation stated that the U.S. is willing to agree to a resolution condemning atmospheric tests but indicated that it is not ready to renounce underground testing. The debate on this issue was quite intense. Peru, as it did during the 1971 Law of the Sea Preparatory meetings, indicated that it would seriously consider severing its diplomatic ties with France if that nation proceeded with its Pacific testing.

The adoption of the Indian-Libyan recommendation to establish a "Human Settlement Development Fund" was also significant. The

objective of this proposal was to strengthen the national programs in the field of human settlements. This would be done by providing seed capital and extending the necessary technical assistance to enable an effective mobilization of domestic resources for housing and the environmental improvement of human settlements. For such a proposal to be successful, it must receive the support of the wealthy countries. However, voting was split between the developed and the developing nations. Without substantial financial support, the creation of such a fund would not achieve its objective. Apparently the developed nations are unwilling at this stage of history to support such a proposal. Another recommendation of the "Action Plan" which we feel contained a great deal of promise called upon all Governments to carefully evaluate the likelihood and magnitude of climatic effects from various operations, and to disseminate their findings before undertaking such activities. This recommendation would have represented a recognition, on the part of the world community, of the need for international cooperation in the areas of weather and climate modification.

Unfortunately, this provision was considerably weakened by an amendment introduced by the United States Delegation. The amended version of this recommendation states the following:

Recommendation. It is recommended that Governments be especially mindful of activities in which there is an appreciable risk of effect on climate; and,

(a) Carefully evaluate the likelihood and magnitude of climatic effects and to the maximum extent feasible, disseminate their findings before embarking on such activities,

(b) Consult fully other interested States when activities carrying a risk of such effects are being contemplated or implemented, (U.S. amendment in italics.)

The U.S. amendment appears to provide a loophole whereby any country could conduct covert military weather modification operations without any form of international control or responsibility. This, we feel, is contrary to a resolution which we and 14 other Senators have introduced in the Senate which expresses the sense of the Senate that the U.S. should seek the agreement of other governments to a proposed treaty prohibiting the use of any environmental modification activity as a weapon of war. We adamantly oppose the use of environmental techniques as weapons of war and strongly urge the Administration to actively promote the negotiation and ratification of such a treaty.

Finally, the Conference in its "Action Plan" agreed to a recommendation which would refer the Ocean Dumping Convention to a final conference to be held in London before November 1972. There had been consideration given to referring the Convention to the Law of the Sea Conference which is not scheduled to be convened until 1973. Fortunately, this course of action was not taken, since it would have stalled final action on an Ocean Dumping Convention for four or five years. By referring the Convention to a final conference to be held later this year, the delegates to the Stockholm conference demonstrated their awareness that the solution of marine pollution is a problem too important to postpone. We are encouraged by the action of the Conference on this issue and hope that future agreements designed to eliminate marine pollution will be actively pursued both within and without the context of the Law of the Sea Conference.

THE DECLARATION ON THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the Conference, in his opening remarks listed the adoption of a U.N. Declaration on the Human Environment as one of the essential elements needed to insure the success of the Stockholm Conference. The Declaration is a "statement of fundamental principles recommended for action by individuals, States, and the international community." It is designed to function as an inspirational and educational device setting forth certain basic principles concerning the environment generally applicable to all nations and peoples.

The U.N. declaration is not a legally binding document, nor does it affect a nation's sovereignty. However, it may provide the basis for the development of various treaties codifying all or some of its principles.

The history of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights is a good example of the potential role and importance of a U.N. Declaration. A number of its basic principles are now incorporated in 14 Human Rights Conventions. The organizers of the Environmental Conference hope that their Declaration will have a similar effect.

The draft document that was initially submitted to the Stockholm Conference on June 5, represented two years of painstaking work on the part of the 27-nation Preparatory Committee. Although it was generally agreed that this draft declaration represented a realistic attempt to reconcile different views and interests, several delegations continued to express desires to improve certain specific points. The Secretariat of the Conference and a number of delegations, including the United States, were reluctant to reopen this compromise text. They feared that no agreement could be reached before the end of the Conference. It was hoped that the Conference would adopt the draft version, with each country recording its "reservations" on the points with which it did not agree.

However, this plan was thwarted when the People's Republic of China in its first parliamentary move of the Conference introduced a resolution calling for the creation of a committee of all the 113. participants to review the draft Declaration. The Chinese argued that since they had just been admitted into the U.N. in October, they had not had a democratic opportunity to express their views. Despite the warnings voiced by the U.S. and Canada, the Chinese resolution was approved.

Thereafter, a Working Group of the Whole was convened behind closed doors in an attempt to arrive at a compromise text. During the meetings of the Working Group, it was estimated that 60 to 100 amendments were submitted by the various delegations.

At the time several of the delegations felt that an agreement on the Declaration was impossible. China's nine formal amendments and its one additional principle were considered by many to be enough to defeat any chance of a general consensus. However, after six straight days of continuous secret meetings, the Working Group was finally able to arrive at an acceptable compromise.

The final document of the Working Group expanded the draft text from 23 to 26 principles and reflected primarily the influence of the