May 25, 1972
Page 18954
STOCKHOLM CONFERENCE ON THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I understand that the positions to be assumed by members of the U.S. delegation to the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment will amount to a replay of narrow and retrogressive environmental policies.
I am disturbed that there will be little opportunity for the free exchange of views and recommendations by the members of the U.S. delegation with the leaders of other nations of the world because U.S. positions have been predetermined in detail by the administration.
The Stockholm Conference is unique. It is more than an opportunity for nations to negotiate hollow treaties on vacuous subjects. It is more than an opportunity for world political leaders to show their interest in preserving the quality of the world environment. It is a real opportunity for nations of the world community to discuss freely action proposals for the improvement and protection of the global environment.
The United States began its substantive focus on environmental quality in the early 1960's. During the past decade we have examined man's relationship to the environment, the effects of man on the environment, and the need to control those effects. As a result, our environmental policies have been broadened and have become increasingly meaningful.
This Nation has made a commitment to end pollution. The Water Quality Improvement Act, the Clean Air Act, and pending amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act are major indicators of that commitment.
These measures were not created to abate a little pollution here and there or to prevent pollution that could be proved specifically harmful to specific parts of the environment. These measures were designed to protect public health and welfare, to improve and enhance the environment.
Yet, Mr. President, the U.S. delegation to the Stockholm Conference departs under instructions to support policies which are in many respects less stringent, less meaningful, and less useful from an environmental standpoint than those which are required in this country.
Let me illustrate. The U.S. position papers for the Stockholm Conference state:
The United States strongly supports the concept of developing internationally agreed upon guidelines for the control of land-based pollution but believes that the current lack of adequate scientific knowledge concerning marine pollution prohibits the development at this time of comprehensive guidelines.
This statement denotes a negative attitude on the part of the administration. I do not share the assumption that the scientific knowledge to regulate marine discharges does not exist. But, in any event, the United States should not rely on a lack of information as a basis for avoiding regulation of marine pollution. Rather, the United States should exert leadership to assure that our knowledge of marine pollution effects will be expanded.
Another section of the U.S. position papers states:
We [the United States] believe countries should take all practical steps to achieve the maximum practical harmonization of their environmental policies. This is not to suggest that countries must adopt identical policies. We appreciate differences may be necessary and appropriate to take account of such factors as variations between countries in their capacity to assimilate pollutants, differences in their population density and degree of industrialization as well as differences in their social and economic priorities. (Emphasis added.)
What do these statements mean? They mean simply that the positions to be advanced by the United States at the Stockholm Conference contain policies already rejected by this Nation as ineffective in achieving environmental quality. They mean that the members of the U.S. delegation will not be conveying to the world their active support for the setting of international standards and norms for environmental behavior.
More specifically, the U.S. delegation will not be advancing to the world community our support for long-term programs to restrict the introduction of pollutants into the environment, from whatever source, as an essential tool for eliminating the destruction of the global environment.
I am concerned, however, that this position, supported by the United States, presents a loophole through which the developed nations can escape. There is every reason to press for uniform standards.
I am aware of the complex problems facing the less developed nations as they work to improve the quality of life for their peoples. The wealth made available by the technological revolution has not been distributed equally among nations.
The problems associated with these inequities are being compounded by the possible effects that international pollution control measures could have on their growth. These countries need jobs. They need to improve living standards. They need to improve their balance of payments. And, they need to produce goods for their own consumption.
Uniform standards are proposed because they are ecologically sound and essential. But in the less developed countries such standards may be economically unattainable. The U.S. position at the Stockholm Conference should take cognizance of that difference.
Both the House and Senate amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act contain directives intended to guide the administration in the development of U.S. policies for the Stockholm Conference. The directive states:
The President shall undertake to enter into international agreements to apply uniform standards of performance for the control of the discharge and emission of pollutants from new sources, uniform controls over the discharge and emission of toxic pollutants, and uniform controls over the discharge of pollutants into the ocean.
Congress obviously believes there is adequate justification for internationally uniform controls and standards for the regulation of discharges of pollutants into the environment. To extend this Nation's conceptual approaches to environmental problems to the global arena would be to demonstrate real world leadership.
Clearly, these U.S. positions are in conflict with the environmental goals that have been set forth by the Congress. The legal requirements for the Clean Air Amendments of 1970 provide for a standard of air quality that is protective of the public health. Further, the amendments require that the emission of hazardous pollutants be controlled without respect to economic cost or feasibility. The best available controls are required, by law, for all new sources of air pollutants.
The positions to be advanced by the United States at the Stockholm Conference are also in conflict with pending Senate amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The Senate amendments respond to the failures of this Nation's existing water quality program. To accomplish this task, controls are to be applied on all sources of discharges, with total elimination of the discharge of pollutants into our Nation's waterways as the policy objective. Prohibition of discharge of toxic substances in toxic amounts without regard to economic cost is provided.
More importantly, if we are to advocate policies setting forth goals and standards for environmental control, we must provide economic and institutional policies that will make possible the achievement of such goals and standards. As outlined by the administration, the U.S. position will not permit a demonstration of world leadership for the positions advanced in these areas.
With respect to the funding of global environmental improvement measures, the "Scope Paper," which is a summary of major U.S. positions, states:
We [the United States] do not foresee any increase in our current level of development assistance. There may well be a concentrated effort on the part of the developing world to force the Stockholm Conference to pass resolutions calling upon the developed world to supply the LDC with additional funds, above and beyond the 1 % target figure, which would be used to finance the entire cost of environmental cleanup in developing countries.
The United States must vote against or abstain on any resolution or document that urges acceptance of this concept of "additionality." Moreover, the Delegation must make the record in the report clearly carry the United States reservation on this issue.
What does this statement mean? It means that the United States is unwilling to provide economic assistance to nations which cannot afford to meet the costs of pollution control. It means that the United States does not support the view that we must share in the financial burden of environmental control. It means that the United States does not support the view that decent development and decent environment are one and the same for all nations.
It appears that short-term budgetary expediency is dictating the administration's position on the long-term needs of less developed countries.
The fact that we are experiencing political resistance to aid ought not restrict us from recognizing these countries. Our Government ought to recognize the equity of assistance to the less- developed countries – the long-term equity based on the assumption that the developed world used the cheapest resources to grow and now have a responsibility to contribute to the less- developed countries who can not afford both development and environmental control.
With respect to institutional arrangements the U.S. position papers advocate the creation of an intergovernmental policy body within the United Nations. A strong institutional framework within the United Nations will be essential if the world community is to respond adequately to global environmental needs and demands.
But the details of the administration's position propose the Economic and Social Council – ECOSOC – as the parent body rather than the General Assembly. This position is in conflict with the recommendation of the Secretary of State's own Advisory Committee on the Stockholm Conference which declared that the new environmental machinery would be "in serious jeopardy" if it were placed under ECOSOC and recommended accordingly that the new environmental body should be a subsidiary of the United Nations General Assembly.
And what does that mean? It means that the United States advocates the submersion of the proposed intergovernmental body into an already weak institutional structure. To quote from the administration's position paper on this matter:
The U.S. proposal is in line with the U.S. objective, shared by many other states, of strengthening ECOSOC and improving its ability to discharge its charter functions. This objective would not be served if in the midst of these efforts such a significant new function were placed elsewhere in the U.N. system.
Clearly, this position further indicates the low priority which the administration places on international environmental problems. I believe the advisory committee is right in stating that the new environmental unit "will bear such importance for the world that its vitality and potential – and not the vitality of, or long range plans for, the ECOSOC – should determine where it is placed in the organizational structure."
This was the advice not only of the advisory committee but of all the expert witnesses that testified before it in public hearings. The failure of the administration to follow this advice is but another example of its failure to take adequate account of expert opinion in developing its positions for Stockholm.
Another illustration of the administration's lack of leadership is its failure to accept the advisory committee's recommendation that the United States propose the filing of international environmental impact statements.
If international environmental cooperation is to be a reality and not just a slogan, the principal countries of the world must be willing to report on all their activities that might affect the environment of others and to consult in good faith with other countries and with international agencies when questions or objections are raised.
This would be the international equivalent of the section 102(2) (c) statements required by our National Environmental Policy Act.
I recognize that all the members of the United Nations will not be willing to undertake such an obligation at Stockholm. But there is no reason why there should not be established an "International Environmental Coalition" of those key countries that bear special responsibilities for the preservation of our endangered planet.
I believe the members of such a coalition should also agree that environmental disputes to which they are a party can be taken to the new environmental institution in the United Nations at the request of any other country and that they will cooperate with any scientific fact-finding panel that might wish to make on-the-spot investigations on their territories.
It is not yet too late for the U.S. delegation to take up the idea of an "International Environmental Coalition" at Stockholm. I call upon the President to see that our delegation takes this important measure of leadership before it is too late.
The aforementioned are but a few of the examples of the predetermined positions of the administration. By accepting these positions, members of the U.S. delegation will risk failure in their attempts to communicate to world leaders the programs which we have already initiated.
They will risk failure in their attempts to communicate to world leaders the minimum values we have found to be essential in this country. They will risk failure in their attempts to communicate to world leaders our economic commitment to solving problems in places other than the United States. More critically, they will risk failure in their attempts to communicate to world leaders the absolute need for an institutional arrangement which will raise the visibility of the environmental issue.
The nature of the delegation itself has also been a source of concern to me. Although many distinguished Members of the House and Senate have been named to the delegation, there is an almost complete absence of leading members of the scientific and environmental communities.
I am aware that there are those who believe that real world leadership by the United States at the conference would be tantamount to U.S. domination at the Stockholm Conference.
I submit that there can be leadership without domination. We must lead in the hope that our initiative, our assistance, and our demonstrated good will can serve to encourage others to participate in the same spirit.
I urge the President to remove the limits on free discussion proposed for members of the U.S. delegation. I urge the Senate Members of the delegation – my colleagues who will be voting on any conventions which may result – to speak out in Stockholm on the environmental goals that have been set by the Congress and only reluctantly accepted by the administration.
I ask unanimous consent that the scope paper be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the scope paper was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT, STOCKHOLM, JUNE 5-16,1972;
SCOPE PAPER
BACKGROUND
At the summer, 1968, session of the U.N. Economic and Social Council, Sweden proposed the holding of the first World Conference on the Human Environment. The proposal was endorsed by ECOSOC and approved by the U.N. General Assembly at its 23rd session in Resolution 2398 of December 3, 1968. A 27-nation Preparatory Committee, of which the U.S. is a member has met four times in the last two years to chart the course of action for the conference. The U.S. has played a major leadership role in these preparations.
U. S. OBJECTIVE
The overall U.S. objective for the conference is to raise the level of national and international concern for environmental problems and to increase national, regional and global capabilities to recognize and solve those problems which have a serious adverse impact on the human environment.
U.S. PRIORITIES
The conference will provide the first opportunity on a world-wide basis for nations to call for the initiation or strengthening of a series of international actions designed to improve the global environment. At an early stage of preparation for the conference, an intensive effort was made to identify actions which are of greatest interest to the U.S. On the basis of this analysis, which included well-defined proposals and initial cost estimates, the U.S. has developed the following priorities for actions which it believes should be recommended by the conference.
The U.S. supports and will participate in the development of conventions, agreements and other mechanisms to conserve and improve the global environment consistent with other U.S. policy objectives. Such conventions, agreements or other mechanisms would provide bases for cooperative international actions in areas of high priority, e.g., marine pollution, the release of toxic substances into the environment, the preservation and exchange of potentially useful plant and animal genetic stocks, preservation of rare species and unique natural, cultural and historic areas, and consultations when the activities of one country adversely affect the environment of others.
The U.S. supports appropriate efforts to sample, analyze and disseminate information on the condition of the global environment. This requires the coordination and supplementation of existing systems for monitoring human health, the atmosphere, the oceans and terrestrial environments. Data obtained would be available to all nations and would be used to measure trends and identify problems requiring international action.
The U.S. supports the development of coordinated national research programs concerned with environmental problems of regional and global significance. These programs would be done cooperatively by countries with UN coordination and encouragement. In developing countries such programs would not only provide research information useful in solving problems, but would also produce cadres of trained scientists. Areas meriting research attention include the development of analytical methods for assessing pollutants, studies to develop criteria and recommended control techniques, cooperative research on human settlements problems, recovery and recycling of resources, irrigation water quality maintenance, reduction of fertilizer and pesticide pollution, ecosystem analysis, resource management, marine-pollution abatement and control, and how proper environmental management can enhance development.
The U.S. supports the effective strengthening of training, education, and public information programs in the field of environment. Competence within a country to deal with environmental degradation is a key element to national action. Included in this area would be development of public education programs (e.g., teacher education, teaching materials, and pilot education programs) and development of environmental training programs in fields such as ecosystem management, water, forestry, soils, land, planning, wildlife management, and agricultural, human and industrial waste management. In addition, public information programs would be developed to provide an understanding of the nature of environmental problems and the need to support efforts to solve them.
The U.S. supports the establishment of improved mechanisms for the exchange of national experience in solving specific environmental problems. A preponderance of the problems of environmental degradation can be solved only on a local or national basis. Procedures should be established for sharing knowledge on how to solve problems and could include establishment of an international referral center for exchange of practical information and national experience.
The U.S. supports regional arrangements to deal with key regional problems, such as conservation and purification of water, management of soil, urbanization, forestry. This would include the establishment or strengthening of regional programs designed to deal with environmental problems common to several countries, e.g., urbanization; natural resource management, including soils, water, and tropical forests; and the effects of agricultural fertilizers, pesticides and fungicides. Such regional programs might also be used for manpower training appropriate to the region.
The U.S. supports improved UN coordination of environmental programs. The U.S. has proposed the establishment of a Small Secretariat as a part of the United Nations and an intergovernmental Committee to coordinate environmental programs and administer an Environmental Fund financed by voluntary contributions from governments.
The U.S. supports the establishment of a mechanism outside the UN to provide environmental scientific advice to the UN and nations. This would provide an international institutional framework for obtaining, authoritative non-governmental, scientific advice as to priorities for action, research and evaluation, and the most effective uses of resources.
EXTENT OF U.S. COMMITMENT
There are five critical issues on which the Delegation must firmly oppose recommendations contrary to the specific U.S. position:
1. The U.S. has proposed a United Nations Fund for the Environment designed to finance the recommendations for environmental programs, projects and functions that are most likely to be centered in the international community following the Stockholm Conference.
The U.S. shares the general view that, while the great majority of actions for environmental improvement must be taken at the national level, there is an essential need for international efforts as well.
These international efforts should serve two kinds of purposes. First, they should deal with inherently international environmental needs such as global monitoring of human health, the oceans, the atmosphere, and terrestrial environments; research; and assessments of the condition of the world environment. Second, they should serve to strengthen national capabilities in the environmental field through education and training, information, exchange, and programs to attack environmental problems on a regional basis – thus enabling national and local authorities to draw on the knowledge, experience. and organizational and technological capacities of the international community. The United States contribution to the proposed Fund would be predicated on its use for such purposes, rather than to solve specific economic development problems within the borders of individual countries. Any effort to convert the voluntary Fund into a development fund must be resisted and, if an attempt to convert it is successful, the Delegation must vote against creation of such a Fund.
2. The current view of the U.S. is that new machinery will be required within the United Nations to coordinate the array of environmental activities of the United Nations system, and to administer the Fund.
As to the nature of this machinery, there is general agreement that a new specialized agency should not be created. The U.S. has proposed the creation of a small high level staff unit under the direction of an Administrator whose responsibility would include coordination of environmental activities of the UN specialized agencies and administration of the voluntary Fund. Policy direction for these activities would be provided by an ECOSOC Commission.
3. Financial support for countries to deal with specific problems within their borders should be principally a national responsibility. However, environmental programs are a part of the development effort, and technical and financial assistance to developing countries for environmental improvement. is desirable. Although the proposed voluntary Fund would not be used for this purpose, international development agencies should be encouraged to support environmental elements of development projects out of existing budgets.
In October 1970 on its 25th Anniversary, the United Nations adopted unanimously a global strategy document for the target of the 1970s, the United Nations Second Development Decade.
One of the goals set forth in that document called for the developed world to:
"Endeavor to provide by 1972 annually to developing countries financial resource transfer of a minimum net amount of 1 % of its gross national product."
The United States supported the 1% target (but not the target dates) and agreed to use its best efforts to achieve that goal. However, at the present time we are at about 0.5 % of our GNP. We do not foresee any increase in our current level of development assistance. There may well be a concentrated effort on the part of the developing world to force the Stockholm Conference to pass resolutions calling upon the developed world to supply the LDCs with additional funds, above and beyond the 1 % target figure, which would be used to finance environmental costs of development assistance projects, or to finance the entire cost of environmental clean up in developing countries.
The U.S. must vote against or abstain on any resolution or document that urges acceptance of this concept of "additionality". Moreover, the Delegation must make the record in the report clearly carry the U.S. reservation on this issue.
4. With the exception of those recommendations which pertain to the issues discussed in the paragraph above, U.S. support for implementation of Conference recommendations will be through the voluntary Fund. However, the Fund will be inadequate to launch all appropriate programs simultaneously which could be supported from it. Consequently, priorities will have to be established among programs as no additional U.S. support is foreseen at this time. The Delegation must make clear that the U.S. contribution will be through the Fund and that the U.S. does not expect the UN specialized agencies to automatically include the costing of the implementation of Conference recommendations in their regular budgets.
5. In the Draft Declaration, there is a paragraph dealing with nuclear testing. If any attempt is made to amend the language on this subject the Delegates must hew precisely to the position paper on this subject.