developing nations. The compromise version retained 10 of the original principles without amendments; added four new elements; amended 11 of the old points; and referred only one point to the General Assembly for further discussion. Of the four new principles, two dealt with wildlife and ocean protection. Another assured developing countries that stable prices for raw materials would be essential for environmental management. The fourth assured developing nations of their autonomy with respect to environmental standards. The various amendments ranged from a denunciation of apartheid to a call for all nations to reach a "prompt agreement" on the "elimination and complete destruction" of all weapons of mass destruction. Several of the delegations, especially the Chinese contingent, objected strenuously to the wording of this latter amendment. China stated that they are developing nuclear weapons solely for the purpose of defense and for breaking the nuclear monopoly of the "great powers." Its delegation emphasized that it could not accept the views of those who "pretend to be impartial and oppose all nuclear tests without making any distinction." They were also opposed to this principle because it did not explicitly repudiate chemical and biological warfare. However, this section of the document was adopted without the Chinese amendment. Another principle which caused a great deal of controversy, and upon which no agreement was reached, would require nations to provide each other with information on contemplated actions that might affect the environment beyond their national boundaries. This principle, involving the question of national sovereignty, was strongly opposed by Brazil which is planning to construct a dam on the Parana River close to the border of Argentina. Argentina is quite concerned about the effect of this dam on the water supply to six of its major cities, including Buenos Aires. Thus, this principle was the subject of long and heated debate between these two countries. The issue was never resolved and the disputed matter is now being sent to the General Assembly for further discussion. Although the Conference unanimously adopted the Declaration on the Human Environment, disputes resulted on various points. These will be registered as formal "reservations" and noted in the official record. Despite the disagreements, the fact that the Conference was able to finally produce a document is a remarkable achievement. Much of the credit for its adoption should be given to Maurice Strong and his staff for their continuous efforts to smooth out differences and find an acceptable consensus. The Declaration, although weak on many points, does provide some important principles which may someday be incorporated into international law. It is, in the opinion of the Conference members, one of the major accomplishments of this Conference. We were impressed by the sincere efforts of most of the delegates to the Stockholm conference to work for effective solutions to our environmental problems that could be implemented in both the developed and the developing nations of the world. We sincerely hope that this attitude will continue in the formulation of more concrete action on international environmental problems. PERMANENT U.N. ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT The most significant action that was taken by the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment was the creation of a U.N. Environmental Agency. This unit will be headed by a small secretariat within the United Nations governed by a 54 member council for environmental programs. This council will report annually to the General Assembly through the Economic and Social Council. Maurice Strong, the Secretary General of the Conference, appears to be the most likely candidate to head the secretariat as its Executive Director. Its headquarters will probably be located in either London or Geneva. However, sites have been offered in Kenya, Malta, Spain and New York. The expenses of both the secretariat and the Governing Council will be borne by the regular budget of the United Nations while the program expenses will be met through the new U.N. voluntary fund. An environmental coordinating board, headed by the Executive Director, will be established to further coordinate U.N. environmental activities and to act as a funnel for the views of non-governmental groups. As was mentioned earlier, the Governing Council will be composed of 54 members elected for three-year terms on the basis of equitable geographical distribution. It will provide general policy guidance for the direction and coordination of environmental programs within the U.N.system. The weakest point of this Administrative set-up will be the financing. All of the hundred or more action proposals adopted by the Conference as well as any new environmental programs established by the U.N. agencies will be supported only by the U.N. Voluntary Fund This fund is now limited to $20 million a year. This funding proposal, which was introduced by President Nixon in February 1972, calls for a five-year fund of $100 million. At the end of the Conference, pledges to this fund reached only $64 million. The U.S. pledged $40 million; Japan $10 million; Canada $5 to $7.5 million; Sweden $5 million; Australia $2.5 million; and the Netherlands $1.5 million. Additional offers without the commitment to specific sums were made by Austria, Great Britain, Denmark, France, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Spain, Switzerland, and West Germany. We feel that the U.N. Environmental Unit is a modest but realistic organizational proposal. While representing the realities of present world politics it does provide enough flexibility for future expansion. We hope that its influence will be expanded as public pressures force national governments to take more concrete international action. We, also, encourage increased contributions to the U.N. Voluntary Fund in order to increase the effectiveness of the new U.N. Environmental Unit. DEVELOPED VERSUS DEVELOPING NATIONS The Conference on the Human Environment emphasized the growing gap between the resources and the thinking of the developed and developing nations. Developing countries appear to be suspicious of the motives of the more developed countries with respect to environmental protection. Many of these lesser developed countries have implied, in the past, that the more industrialized countries have a vested interest in impeding the economic growth of the poor nations. The developing nations see global pollution problems as by-products of the intense industrial activity of the highly developed nations. They fear that in their efforts to repair and improve their domestic environments, the rich nations will establish trade barriers to exclude products of an "environmentally inferior" agricultural or manufacturing process. Because of these fears and suspicions, the "Action Plan" was heavily weighted with recommendations urging financial aid to help developing nations bear the burden of environmental protection. Among the recommendations referred to the Conference were assurances that: (1) The world's wealthy nations would not invoke environmental matters as a pretext for discriminating trade policies: (2) GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) would be allowed to monitor and assess tariff and trade barriers resulting from environmental policies; (3) Financial and technical assistance would be provided to help poor countries remove such obstacles to their exports; and (4) Appropriate measures for compensation would be provided where environmental standards have a negative effect on developing nations' exports. All of these propositions were generally opposed by the highly developed states. Most of these countries, with the exception of the U.S., abstained from voting on a number of the issues. Unfortunately for the U.S. image, the American delegation was operating under strict instructions from the Administration to vote against any proposals that would increase aid levels to the developing nations. This left the U.S. delegation in singular dissent on a number of occasions and made it difficult, perhaps impossible, to express our views on the central issue in votes at the conference. There are a number of problems raised by proposals for specific and automatic compensation for adverse effects suffered by polluting industries as a result of enforcement of environment standards in the developed countries. For example, this policy could hamper the enforcement of higher environmental standards by requiring compensation for adverse effects that may not really be associated with environmental protection at all. In addition, the policy could result in payments to polluting industries that would only serve to increase the profits of that industry, without offsetting hardships suffered by individual employees of the industry or contributing to the general economy of the country involved. For these reasons, we believe the U.S. should work within a multinational framework to help developing nations choose a growth pattern that will yield a combination of low environmental risk and high economic gain for the general economy of the nation. The costs of these efforts should be associated with general aid to developing nations, not to specific environmental standards that may be adopted by any of the developed nations. We agree with Robert McNamara, president of the World Bank, that "human degradation is the most dangerous pollutant there is" and with Dennis L. Meadows, director of MIT's study on growth, that "the horrible straits of the poor are ethically and politically unviable." But we believe this problem must be dealth with on its own merits, without imposing additional, unwarranted burdens on efforts to improve other environmental standards. RECOMMENDATIONS In view of the foregoing we strongly recommend that the United States: (1) Give its full support and cooperation to the newly created United Nations Unit, including actively working to increase the contribution to the U.N. Voluntary Environmental Fund in order to increase the effectiveness of this Environmental unit. (2) Actively encourage and promote multilateral agreements on the regulation of marine pollution. In view of the urgency of this problem, we hope that such agreements will be pursued outside of, as well as within, the context of the Law of the Sea Conference. (3) Increase its multilateral development assistance. This increase could be utilized to assist developing nations in choosing growth patterns that yield a combination of low invironmental risk and high economic gain for the general economy of the nation. (4) Recognize the inherent environmental danger in both atmospheric and underground testing of nuclear weapons, and actively promote the cessation of all such testing. (5) Condemn the use of chemicals, herbicides, and environmental modification techniques as weapons of war. (6) Actively promote the negotiation and ratification of a treaty eschewing environmental, weather modification and geophysical techniques as weapons of war. APPENDICES APPENDIX I U.S. Delegates and Advisers to Stockholm Conference Russell E. Train (Chairman) and Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality. Christian A. Herter, Jr. (Vice Chairman), Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for Environmental Affairs. Howard Baker, U.S. Senator (Republican of Tennessee), Chairman, Advisory Committee on the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment. Shirley Temple Black, Alternate U.S. Representative to the U.N. Preparatory Committee for the Conference on the Human Environment. John A. Blatnik, U.S. Representative (Democrat of Minnesota). James L. Buckley, U.S. Senator (Conservative-Republican of New York). Clifford Case, U.S. Senator (Republican of New Jersey). Bert Cross, Chairman of the National Industrial Pollution Control Council, and Chairman, Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. John D. Dingell, U.S. Representative (Democrat of Michigan). Roger Egeberg, Special Assistant for Health Policy to Secretary of HEW; Consultant to the President on Health Policy. John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs. Seymour Halpern, U.S. Representative (Republican of New York). Jerome Holland, U.S. Ambassador to Sweden. Frank Ikard, President, American Petroleum Institute. Samuel C. Jackson, General Assistant Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development. Norman Livermore, Secretary of Resources, State of California. John A. Love, Governor, State of Colorado. Gordon MacDonald, Member, Council on Environmental Quality. Frank E. Moss, U.S. Senator (Democrat of Utah). S. Dillon Ripley, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution. Gaylord Nelson, U.S. Senator (Democrat of Wisconsin). Claiborne Pell, U.S. Senator (Democrat of Rhode Island). Laurence S. Rockefeller, Chairman, Citizens Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality; Member, National Park Foundation. John Rollins, President, Rollins Leasing Corporation. William Ruckelshaus, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. William Scott, Attorney General, State of Illinois. Elvis A. Stahr, President, National Audubon Society. John W. Tukey, Professor of Mathematics, Princeton University. Ross Vincent, Member, Advisory Committee on the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment; Vice President, Ecology Center, New Orleans, La. John Whitaker, Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs. Robert White, Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Harrison A. Williams, U.S. Senator (Democrat of New Jersey). Technical Advisers Henry Brodie, Deputy Director for Multilateral Programs, Office of Environmental Affairs, Department of State. Theodore C. Byerly, Assistant Director, Science and Education, Department of Agriculture. 83-393-72—3 (11) |