[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 182 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17198-S17199]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     THE LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, from October 23 to November 3, 1995, the 
United States was host to an intergovernmental conference convened 
under the auspices of the U.N. Environment Programme to adopt a Global 
Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from 
Land Based Sources of Marine Pollution. My colleagues know that I have 
long had a strong interest in the protection of the environment, and in 
particular of our oceans. In fact, in 1973, legislation was enacted 
that I introduced to create the position of Assistant Secretary of 
State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific 
Affairs. I was pleased that the Congress and the President agreed with 
my strong feeling that increased cooperation with respect to the 
protection of our oceans be given greater focus and visibility at the 
State Department.
  As far back as 1977 I introduced a resolution that required countries 
to conduct environmental impact assessments before carrying out 
activities that might impact the environment of another country or of a 
global commons area. The U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) was to be 
the recipient of these impact assessments and in July 1995, I 
introduced Resolution 154 calling on other nations to adopt a similar 
approach. UNEP has retained its key role in the protection of the 
environment worldwide and the Washington Conference on Marine Pollution 
was but the latest example of its ongoing efforts to encourage all 
countries to cooperate in the protection of the environment.
  This Conference was convened as a result of the U.N. Conference on 
Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. It 
recognized the fact that more than 80 percent of marine pollution 
originates from terrestrial sources and its aim was to ensure that all 
the Parties would coordinate their efforts in trying to reduce such 
sources of pollution. The two outcomes of the Conference were the 
Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment 
form Land-Based Activities, adopted at the end of the Conference, and 
the Washington Declaration, which was adopted by its high-level 
segment. Both the Programme of Action and the Declaration complement 
the legal regime set up by the Law of the Sea Convention which was 
signed by President Clinton and is still pending before the Committee 
on Foreign Relations.
  I wish to call the attention of my colleagues to an article published 
in the Washington Post on November 4, 1995, which highlights the risks 
now weighing on our oceans and the need to take urgent action. I ask 
unanimous consent that this article be included in the Record at the 
end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  [See exhibit 1.]
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I have always been a very strong supporter 
of the Law of the Sea Convention because it sets up a new Constitution 
for the Oceans and because it is the perfect tool to put an end to such 
destructive measures as ocean dumping and other forms of direct 
pollution. In that respect, the Law of the Sea addresses the marine 
sources of oceans pollution. The Washington Conference aimed to 

[[Page S 17199]]
complement this approach by addressing the impact of terrestrial, and 
indirect, sources of marine pollution. The Programme of Action adopted 
by the Conference contains a series of practical steps that governments 
can adopt, while the Washington Declaration provides us with a 
framework to further our international cooperation.
  At the national level, countries can, and should, restrict negative 
impacts by better and stronger regulation of sewage discharges and by 
controlling the production and use of pesticides, fertilizers and other 
persistent organic pollutants that are known to cause considerable 
damage to marine life. At the international level, cooperation needs to 
be increased, with a view to imposing more stringent controls on the 
most dangerous of substances, such as DDT, PCBs, and other persistent 
organic pollutants. The Washington Declaration recognizes this by 
calling for the development of a global legally binding instrument for 
the reduction or elimination of persistent organic pollutants. At this 
stage, it is still unclear what form such a treaty should and will 
take, but it is of the utmost importance that the United States become 
an active participant in these negotiations.
  By definition, marine pollution is a global problem, and while it 
cannot be solved by individual nations, we all have a responsibility to 
cooperate in attempting to save our oceans. The United States has 
always been at the forefront of similar efforts in the past and we 
cannot shrink from our responsibilities in these times of crisis. The 
Law of the Sea Convention and the Washington Programme of Action are 
the two vital instruments through which we can finally put an end to 
the excessive pollution of our oceans. This is a chance for the United 
States to prove that it really intends to address and solve the very 
important issue of marine pollution by ratifying the Law of the Sea 
Convention, by implementing the Programme of Action in earnest, and by 
becoming a leader in the negotiations of a treaty on the regulation of 
persistent organic pollutants.

                               Exhibit 1

          Experts Seek Global Treaty On Toxic Ocean Pollutants

                             (By Gary Lee)

       Alarmed by rising levels of pollution in the world's 
     oceans, a conference of environmental experts from 102 
     countries yesterday called for new global controls on the use 
     of DDT and 11 other toxic chemicals that are often discharged 
     into waterways.
       The Washington gathering, sponsored by the United Nations 
     Environment Program (UNEP), urged industrial and developing 
     countries to negotiate a global treaty restricting the spread 
     of a dozen persistent organic pollutants, a group of 
     industrially produced chemicals that frequently wind up in 
     oceans and other water supplies. Participants in the two-week 
     meeting, which ended yesterday, approved a program of action 
     that included the call for a treaty.
       Persistent organic pollutants were targeted for more 
     stringent international regulation because they are highly 
     toxic, remain in the environment for long periods and can 
     spread thousands of miles from the point of emission, 
     conference delegates said.
       After accumulating in fish and other marine mammals, such 
     chemicals work their way through the food chain and may 
     eventually be consumed by people. They can cause severe 
     health problems, said Clif Curtis, an adviser to the 
     international environmental organization Greenpeace. Studies 
     have linked some of the compounds to cancer, neurological 
     damage and defects of the reproductive system and immune 
     system in various animals, including humans. Creatures 
     occupying positions near the top of the food chain--such as 
     fish that eat smaller fish, marine mammals, seabirds and 
     humans--are at greater risk of such effects because more of 
     the toxic substances accumulate in their tissues. Greenpeace 
     advocates a worldwide ban on the production and use of 
     persistent organic pollutants.
       The campaign for new restrictions on the chemicals is part 
     of a growing movement to save the oceans, considered by many 
     environmentalists to be the world's last under-regulated 
     biological frontier, from further degradation.
       ``The oceans of the world are interdependent,'' Vice 
     President Gore told the gathering in a speech this week. 
     ``The only way to stop the degradation of marine environment 
     from land-based activities is to share the solutions.''
       ``If we're going to take the cleanup of the oceans 
     seriously, [persistent organic pollutants] must be banned,'' 
     said Salef Diop, an adviser to the Senegalese environment 
     ministry and delegate to the conference.
       While the 1982 Law of the Sea Treaty and other 
     international agreements regulate ocean dumping and other 
     forms of direct pollution, the UNEP conference focused on 
     restricting land-based activities that indirectly contribute 
     to the pollution of oceans--such as the use of organic 
     pesticides that are washed into rivers and end up in the 
     ocean.
       The conference pointed out in its recommendations that 
     individual countries can help fight ocean pollution through 
     national policies, such as the reduction of sewage discharges 
     and control of pollution from nonpoint sources like farmland. 
     Land-based activities are responsible for 80 percent of ocean 
     pollution, according to Magnus Johannesson, a senior 
     environmental official from Iceland.
       The substances pinpointed by the conference as requiring 
     more stringent controls include the pesticides DDT, 
     toxaphene, chlordane, heptachlor, endrin, aldrin, mirex and 
     dieldrin, as well as byproducts of industrial combustion such 
     as dioxins, furans, hexachlorobenzene and the group of 
     chlorinated substances known as polychlorinated biphenyls 
     (PCBs). Although dozens of other chemicals pose a threat to 
     oceans, these 12 are most widely used and most toxic, 
     according to environmentalists.
       After controls are in place, others could be added to the 
     list if scientific consensus indicates that they are harmful 
     to marine life, conference delegates said.
       The U.S. has already moved to ban the use or spread of many 
     of the compounds, but at least two--chlordane and 
     heptachlor--are still produced by American companies for 
     export abroad, Clinton administration officials said.
       Although banned in the United States in 1972, DDT is still 
     widely used in India and some other developing countries to 
     protect crops against insects. Heptachlor and toxaphene are 
     also used heavily in some countries.
       Safer alternatives exist, but some research will be needed 
     to determine whether they can be substituted cost-effectively 
     in those countries that still rely on chemicals that end up 
     as persistent organic pollutants, conference delegates said.

                          ____________________