Stockholm

Preparations for the June 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm went forward throughout the year. Indeed, the preparations may prove as significant as the conference itself, for numerous international agencies, governments, and scientific organizations have been drawn into the process in ways that are likely to have lasting impact.

The actual staff and budget of the Conference's Secretary-General are very small. However, cooperating UN agencies, governments, and voluntary scientific and conservationist groups have generated a great flow of background material. So much, in fact, that the small staff has been hard pressed to digest it

Early in 1971 there were growing fears that the less-developed countries (LDCs) would not cooperate with the Conference. They had been unenthusiastic participants at the first session of the 27-nation Preparatory Commission meeting and there were many reasons to expect coolness in their attitude. The problems that generated the initial call for the Conference are largely those of rich countries, and it was feared that corrective measures, whether undertaken in the rich countries or in the poor, would present new obstacles to development via their effects on trade, investment, availability of aid, conditions attached to aid grants, and reduced consumption of LDC products.

Recognition of this problem has brought prompt efforts to meet it. An agenda item called "Economic and Financial Implications" was transformed into "Development and the Environment" at a meeting in February. The theme caught on quickly. In mid-June, a special panel assembled by the Conference secretariat produced an even-handed paper on the subject which has served as the basis for subsequent regional meetings in Mexico City, Bangkok, Addis Ababa, and Beirut on the same theme. Meanwhile, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, members of Congress, the International Conference of Scientific Unions and the American Association for the Advancement of Science all sponsored meetings on the subject, the latter calling in its invitation for "a massive new effort . . . . to synthesize an environmentally sound approach to development."

Most of the foregoing meetings consciously attempted to relate in one way or another to the Stockholm Conference. At the same time independent groups, such as the Smithsonian Institution, have been attempting to learn what has gone wrong with development spectaculars (Aswan Dam, for example), and how one might avoid future errors. Likewise, international aid givers have begun injecting environmental considerations into development projects.

In the course of all of this discussion and conceptualizing, a noteworthy shift has occurred. In 1970 we were discovering the global aspects of environmental problems—pollution of the oceans, atmospheric effects, worldwide transport of pollutants, preservation of unique features and life, etc. In 1971 we turned to the global effect of environmental policies, especially on the developing countries. What is their impact for development and who will bear the cost? There are many questions and few answers.

The Conference Secretary-General, Maurice Strong, determined early that the meeting would face up to these problems. As a consequence, the interest of the LDCs in the Conference has quickened and their concern about the development issue has been substantially defused. While there is yet no agreement on policies or actions, the nature of the issues is much better understood.

The watchword of the Conference is "action." Participating governments are expected to vote on the matters before the Conference, and this expectation is forcing governments to study the official documents with care and to consider the findings of specialists.

The term "action" apparently will be very broadly construed. Almost any kind of recommendation will be an "action proposal," whether it be research on man's ultimate values, a plan to monitor ocean pollutants, or a program to protect internationally treasured landscape features. Although the meaning of action has been stretched a bit, this emphasis on reasonably concrete proposals may serve to prevent the Conference from becoming either a podium for platitudes or a discussion comprehensible at best to technical experts.

The action focus also helps to provide some limit to the scope of the subject matter. For the purposes of the Conference, environment has come to embrace virtually the entire human condition, and many seek consideration of their principal concerns under their rubric —health, soil management, urban forms, etc. Older UN agencies such as the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization properly wonder what is new about some of these topics. If the Conference is to avoid becoming a forum for discussion of all of the world's ills, its leadership will face a demanding task of keeping the discussion on track.