Stockholm: The Morning After

Four years after it had first voted to hold a Conference on the Human Environment, the United Nations General Assembly in December completed the first phase of injecting an environmental viewpoint into the UN system by establishing an Environmental Secretariat. Conceived as a small staff group, it will be guided by a 58-nation governing council, flanked by a Coordinating Board designed to both watch over the interests of and provide access to the UN specialized agencies (FAO, WHO, UNESCO, etc.) and entrusted with allocating the funds—expected to reach $20 million a year for the first five years—voluntarily contributed by the organization's member states.

This simple action poorly reflects the cliffhanger quality of the Stockholm Conference, where details of the new institution and other business were up for decision by 113 attending nations. It is clear that many clouds hung over the two week meeting when it opened in Stockholm 5 June 1972.

—The absence of the Soviet Union and its satellites, unwilling to bear the political burden of having come to a conference to which East Germany had not been admitted
—The presence of a 17-man Chinese delegation with unknown intentions and equally unknown parliamentary habits
—The ambivalent attitude of the UN specialized agencies who were out to guard their special hunting preserves from intruders but who also scented the environmental money that might replenish their treasuries —The possibility of a new outbreak of hostilities between the developed and the less-developed countries over the relationship between economic growth and environmental concern
—The anticipated presence in Stockholm of thousands of uninvited observers and would-be participants, of different persuasions but united in their contempt for what they considered too narrow a framework and conception of the human environment
—A multitude of public forums attended by scientists and other luminaries of worldwide reputation, likely to attract the attention of the press and relegate the conference itself to a sideshow
—An enormously crowded agenda, every item of which had to be submitted to vote, and therefore open to amendments and discussion.

For several days events at Stockholm seemed to bear out the worst fears. The press was turned off early by the technical character of the debate in the committees and by the repetitiveness of the statements made by spokesmen of countries and organizations in the simultaneously held plenary sessions. Moreover, the most dramatic show took place without press coverage. That was the special working group set up to rewrite the Declaration of Principles, put together over a period of 18 months by a 27-country preparatory committee, but at the insistence of the Chinese delegation reopened in full to rewriting and therefore almost up to the last minute of the conference considered a lost cause.

But when the conference ended on schedule on 16 June, it had accomplished all that could have been expected of it. When it was all over, there was a Declaration of Principles, an Action Plan consisting of 109 recommendations following closely those worked out by the UN Secretariat during the year and a half preceding the conference; and the already noted institutional framework for continuing work within the United Nations. In addition, a follow-up conference was voted for, with date and place left open; 5 June was selected to be celebrated each year as World Environment Day; and the UN Secretary General was asked to review the entire environmental setup within a matter of two years. The standing ovation given by the delegates to Maurice Strong, the conference's Secretary General, was as unusual as it was spontaneous.

The absence of the Eastern bloc turned out to be not too disturbing because a solution via the early admission to the United Nations of the two Germanies was assumed by all; and during the happier months before the Russians pulled out no important differences in principle had emerged. As for the Chinese, their silence, tantamount to nonparticipation in committee work, and their energetic tactics on the Declaration of Principles were puzzling to many. Those who had waited to learn how China managed its environmental problems remained disappointed.

Relationships between the conference and the parallel meetings and events were intelligently handled. The conference was sufficiently shielded from intrusions to be able to do its assigned work, yet many delegates visited and participated in the activities of the unofficial emissaries from around the world in sufficient numbers to forestall credible charges of ivory tower isolation.

What difference will the conference have made to the future of the human environment? On a general level, a major conference recommendation led to adding to the UN establishment a new group—one that holds a brief for reviewing and coordinating activities from an environmental point of view; that can stimulate existing activities and initiate new ones; that can report on the worldwide status of developments in the field; and that can, as is so often the function of the UN, defuse conflict. Many enterprises already on the way will receive added momentum, especially in the field of monitoring and "watchfulness."

Not every specific recommendation of this conference will be carried out, at least not immediately. Less than a month after an almost unanimous conference endorsement of a 10-year moratorium on commercial whaling, the International Whaling Commission ignored the proposal (though its constituent countries took some other steps to show good will).

On the other hand, an agreement was reached in mid-November at a 91-nation meeting in London to put brakes on ocean dumping of noxious material. The agreement, which will come into force when 15 nations have ratified it, was put together by a special Intergovernmental Working Group on Marine Pollution set up in the spring of 1971 as an integral part of the preparations for the Stockholm Conference. The conference itself endorsed the group's work and asked participating nations to attend the London conference and bring it to a successful conclusion. This has now happened.

A success of this kind augurs well for other initiatives that emerged from the conference. Among them are an endorsement of a draft convention on the World Heritage Trust; an invitation to countries to sign the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance; a call for a working group to establish a convention on game regulation to protect species inhabiting international waters or migrating across borders; a recommendation to explore creation of an Institute for Tropical Marine Studies; and a call for a meeting to establish environmental improvement areas. Some of these will go, some won't; yet adoption of the Ocean Dumping Convention has not only removed the chill that followed the Whaling Commission's lack of responsiveness but will undoubtedly add momentum to other recommendations.

Beyond these organizational and operational perspectives, there is the less palpable but not therefore less real achievement of the Declaration of Principles. Some may find the prose unstimulating, but only those who doubt that ideas move men will shrug off the declaration as just one more wall decoration. Assertions such as that "states have . . . the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other states or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction" (Principle 21), or that "states shall cooperate to develop further the international law regarding liability and compensation for the victims of pollution and and other environmental damage caused by activities within the jurisdiction or control of such states to areas beyond their jurisdiction" (Principle 22) may have been made before, but their elevation to a declared UN policy is cause for satisfaction, particularly in so new a field as that of environmental concern. The Stockholm documents with all their shortcomings represent a reference point, an assertion of authority, a new plateau from which work can now radiate out along many directions

After establishing the Environmental Secretariat, the General Assembly chose Nairobi as its headquarters. The immediate reaction has been that the decision comports poorly with the intended role of the new staff group: coordinator, watchdog, and stimulator of other UN agencies and nongovernmental organizations. A staff in perpetual travel status or an isolated band of thinkers in Nairobi are equally unattractive alternatives. One would strain the resources available to the new organization, the other greatly reduce its effectiveness. Either might make it difficult to attract the talent that is required, the more so since the budgeted staff of environmental specialists barely exceeds a dozen. All other help must be financed from the Environment Fund. It would be ironic if one of the results of the pioneering efforts of the conference's Secretary General to stir the interest of the less developed in environmental issues should be higher cost, or lower effectiveness, of the new unit by reasons of a location ill-fitted to its task.

Perhaps the difficulties of site may not turn out to be as great as they now appear. Moreover, one can take the view that the decision may sustain the developing countries' interest in an issue they not long ago were apt to shrug off as a plaything of the rich. Conversely, one must hope that the organizational awkwardness of the site will not dampen the enthusiasm of the more advanced countries whose contribution of money and experience is essential to carrying out present plans for assembling staff and developing a work program by midsummer. The election of Maurice Strong as executive director offers reassurance that both objectives will be attained.