victims of pollution and other environmental damage caused by activities within the jurisdiction or control of such states to areas beyond their jurisdiction.

These are principles that have been agreed to by states attending the U.N. Stockholm meeting, including the United States. They form the basis of a body of emerging principles of international law to govern the environment. By limiting compensation for harm from environmental modification to those states party to the convention, the current draft is a regression from international legal developments, and indeed may be inconsistent with them.

COMPREHENSIVENESS IN KINDS OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MODIFICATIONS PRESCRIBED

I think we have to be cautious also in assessing whether the convention is comprehensive in the kinds of environmental modifications. that are prescribed. Article II defines the term "environmental modification techniques" as referring to any "techniques for changingthrough the deliberate manipulation of natural processes the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere, or of outer space."

We may need to clarify what these latter terms encompass. For example, hydrosphere in its narrow meaning may refer only to the aqueous vapor of the atmosphere, but can be broadly used to refer to the aqueous envelope of the Earth including bodies of water and aqueous vapor in the atmosphere. Certainly we would want the broader definition to apply.

The lithosphere usually refers to the outer part of the solid Earth composed of rock essentially like that exposed at the surface. It is dubious that the term encompasses changes in soil composition or in land surface structures. Would schemes for modifying the electrical properties of the atmosphere or for introducing electromagnetic fields into the atmosphere be encompassed within the language of article II? One can interpret the term "including" as indicating that the following terms are illustrative only of the spheres covered by the more general language.

In this regard the testimony of Admiral Davies was very noteworthy. We should encourage an explicit recognition of this interpretation by the parties, as by altering the language to say, "as including but not limited to." One is puzzled as to why the relatively obscure terms of biota, lithosphere, and hydrosphere are used and listed before the atmosphere while the coverage of soils, land surfaces, and bodies of water, to name a few, is left obscure.

WHAT IS NEEDED

A convention prohibiting the military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques is a useful step in assuring that others do not intend to use these technologies as a weapon. But particularly where the perception of whether another state has caused bad weather, can be more important than a scientific assessment, we need also to develop effective civilian measures to give assurance to states that techniques for modifying the environment will only be used for peaceful purposes.

As a corollary to the convention we will need to develop arrangements which regulate the peaceful uses of weather modification. Essentially we need to reduce the chance that states could use the techniques covertly against other states and the fear that others had done so. All states share a common global climatic system and common associated weather systems. Hence it is in everyone's interest to join in arrangements insuring an orderly development and use of techniques for changing weather or climate conditions.

The draft convention before us is a step in prohibiting the hostile uses of environmental modification techniques. But it is ambiguous, when it should be clear. We need to make sure the convention is comprehensive in what it bans, so that we do not legitimize any hostile use of environmental modification techniques. We need to be sure that the convention covers those uses of weather modification which have already occurred and are the most likely to recur. The development and use of new and unconventional environmental weapons can threaten the environmental integrity of our planet.

Thank you very much, Mr. Senator.
[Dr. Weiss' prepared statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. EDITH BROWN WEISS

AN END TO WEATHER WARS?

Mr. Chairman, The United States and other countries face a great danger from the possibility of continued use of techniques of modifying our environment as weapons of war. If we want to avoid these dangers, it is essential that we agree now to prohibit the use of such techniques for war. The draft convention prepared by the Soviet Union and the United States on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques is a step in this direction. How useful the convention will be depends upon future negotiations over the language of the convention. There are important ambiguities in this draft about the extent to which weather modification activities are covered by its prohibitions and about whether the use of environmental modifications techniques incidental to facilitating the effectiveness of other weapons is covered under the language of the convention.

Article 1 indicates that the convention covers only environmental modification techniques "having widespread, long-lasting or severe defects". The convention does not define "long-lasting, widespread or severe". Ironically, the language sounds like it covers only those techniques which are least developedsuch as techniques for climate modification. One may reasonably interpret it as covering hurricane, typhoon, or cyclone modification. How much it covers weather modification techniques for smaller-scale phenomena is not clear. Certainly, the response of Dr. Ikle from the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency to the effect that these words mean "significant or substantial" is a useful indication that the language may cover, for example, some cloud-seeding activities to increase or decrease rain, or augment snow pack.

However, we do not yet have an unequivocal statement that our weather modification activities during the Viet Nam conflict would be prohibited under the proposed draft Convention. What we have is a statement that if we use the techniques employed in the Viet Nam war and they are effective and have widespread, long-lasting or severe effects, then this use would be prohibited. On the other hand, we are told in a letter of September 24, 1975 from Dr. Ikle to Congressman Gude that the Convention would permit the non-hostile use of fog dispersal to facilitate landings and takeoffs at one's own airfields. There is a large unaccounted for gap between these two poles of certainty. Would cloud-seeding activities designed to increase snowpack in mountain passes or to increase rainfall to wash out jungle trails be permitted under the Convention? Would the dispersal or generation of fog be covered? Can any techniques for affecting fog meet a test of widespread, long-lasting or severe? If all of these activities are in fact covered by the language of the treaty, there is no reason for the presence of the three adjectives, "widespread, long-lasting or severe.”

My own recommendation is that these adjectives be deleted from the draft of the treaty. Then the convention would ban use of any environmental techniques for military or other hostile purposes. A meeting in Geneva in November between the World Meteorological Organization cloud physicists, and legal experts representing the United Nations Environmental Program recommended a general principle of international law dedicating weather modification exclusively to peaceful purposes. Deletion of the adjectives would be consistent with this principle.

The terminology of Article I is particularly disturbing when it is combined with the language in Article II, which is designed to define what environmental modification techniques are included in Article I. Article II specifically refers to changes in weather patterns. The use of the term "weather patterns" implies more than the individual clouds. Similarly it speaks of an upset in the ecological balance of a "Region". This language, taken together with the use of the terms "long-lasting, widespread, and severe" would suggest that smaller-scale types of weather modification are not included within the treaty. In particular, it seems doubtful whether all hostile uses of techniques for affecting fog (either by dispersing it or by increasing it) would be included within the language of the treaty. If we don't include the hostile use of all techniques for modifying weather, we may defeat the usefulness of the Convention.

Accepting any environmental modification techniques as legitimate weapons undermines the already shaky distinction between conventional and unconventional means of warfare. It makes acceptable the idea of using techniques of environmental modification as a weapon of war. This is particularly undesirable in a world which is becoming increasingly vulnerable to unconventional means of warfare. Even the chance that states will be able to use some techniques for hostile purposes without violating the Convention casts suspicion on the development and use of weather modification technology for peaceful purposes. In the long run, it can endanger the international cooperative programs in weather forecasting and atmospheric research, which help us to understand and use weather to benefit mankind. If even one state uses environmental modification for hostile purposes and it is acceptable under the Convention, she invites other states to do likewise. Prohibiting all hostile uses of these techniques averts this interaction and avoids the problem of escalating the increasingly more sophisticated and serious techniques of environmental modification.

A major use of environmental modification techniques is to facilitate the effectiveness of other weapons. For example, some weapons are more effective in given weather conditions than in other weather conditions. Yet, Article I is ambiguous as to whether this would be covered under the Convention. Article I provides that each state undertakes not to engage in military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques "as the means of destruction or injury to another state party." Would the use of such techniques incidental to facilitating the effectiveness of other weapons be viewed as using the techniques as a means of destruction, damage or injury to another state party? They are not the direct means but are rather the means of facilitating other weapons that are means of destruction, damage or injury. Certainly if the convention is to have any impact in this field, it is essential that incidental use of these techniques to facilitate the effectiveness of other weapons be included within its language. Enforcement of a treaty is always a central concern of countries. Unfortunately the draft before us relies solely upon the Security Council to enforce the treaty, where several countries with major capabilities in environmental modification have the right of veto. As the convention now stands, complaints of violations go to the Security Council, which has the authority to investigate the matter. This decision would be subject to the veto of the permanent members of the Council, including the U.S. and the USSR. If the Security Council decides to investigate, it is responsible for informing the other states who are parties to the Convention of the results of the investigation. It decides whether or not a state party to the Convention has been harmed or is likely to be harmed as a result of the violation. Again the permanent members of the Security Council would have the right to veto the decision. If we are going to have complaints procedure acceptable to countries as just and credible, all countries should be equally subject to it, without any special rights of veto.

If a state is harmed or likely to be harmed from a violation, the present draft only obligates states to provide assistance to the victim State, if that State is a party to the Convention. While in theory this may encourage signatories to the

convention, in fact it runs counter to emerging international law on environmental harm. Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration of the Human Environment provides that every State has "the responsibility to ensure that activities under its jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other states or areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction", and Principle 22 calls on States "to develop further the international law regarding liability and compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage caused by activities within the jurisdiction or control of such States to areas beyond their jurisdiction." These are principles agreed to by States attending the UN Stockholm Meeting, including the U.S. They form the basis of a body of emerging principles of international law to govern the environment. By limiting compensation for harm from environmental modification to those States party to the Convention, the current draft is a regression from international legal developments, and indeed is inconsistent with them.

We have to be cautious in assessing whether the Convention is comprehensive in the kinds of environmental modifications that are prescribed. Article II defines the term "environmental modification techniques" as referring to any "techniques for changing-through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes— the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere, and atomsphere, or of outer space." We need to clarify what these latter terms encompass. For example, hydrosphere in its narrowing meaning may refer only to the aqueous vapor of the atmosphere, but can be broadly used to refer to the aqueous envelope of the earth including bodies of water and aqueous vapor in the atmosphere. Certainly we would want the broader definition to apply. The lithosphere usually refers to the outer part of the solid earth composed of rock essentially like that exposed at the surface. It is dubious that the term encompasses changes in soil composition or in land surface structures. Would schemes for modifying the electrical properties of the atmosphere or for introducing electromagnetic fields into the atmosphere be encompassed within the language of Article II? One can interpret the term "including" as indicating that the following terms are illustrative only of the spheres covered by the more general language, but we should encourage an explicit recognition of this interpretation by the parties. One is puzzled as to why the relatively obscure terms of biota, ltihosphere, and hydrosphere are used and listed before the atmosphere while the coverage of soils, land surfaces, and bodies of water, to name a few, is left obscure.

A convention prohibiting the military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques is a useful step in assuring that others do not intend to use these technologies as a weapon. But particularly where the perception of whether another state has caused bad weather, for example, can be more important than a scientific assessment, we need to develop effective civilian measures to give assurance to states that techniques for modifying the environment will only be used for peaceful purposes.

As a necessary corollary to the Convention we will need to develop arrangements which regulate the peaceful uses of weather modification. Essentially we need to reduce the chance that states could use the techniques covertly against other states and the fear that others had done so. This requires continuing and expanding international programs for monitoring atmospheric and oceanic conditions, for forecasting weather and climate, and for conducting atmospheric and oceanic research. It means we need to give priority to developing procedures for ensuring that the interests of all affected states are taken into consideration before activities to modify weather or climate take place. All states share a common global climatic system and common associated weather systems. Hence it is in everyone's interest to join in arrangements insuring an orderly development and use of techniques for changing weather or climate conditions.

The draft convention before us is a step in prohibiting the hostile uses of environmental modification techniques. But it is ambiguous, when it should be clear. We need to make sure the Convention is comprehensive in what it bans, so that we do not legitimize any hostile use of environmental modification techniques. We need to be sure that the Convention covers these uses of weather modification, which have already occurred in the Viet Nam War and are the most likely to recur. The development and use of new and unconventional environmental weapons can threaten the environmental integrity of our planet.

Senator PELL. Thank you very much indeed, Dr. Weiss, for being with us. I think your testimony is valuable. I agree with what you are seeking to do here.

My job is to try to see that the possible moves ahead. Sometimes the possible is not the ideal. I would hope perhaps that in Geneva there will be more steps taken along these lines. From the viewpoint of securing a change in our own Government, I would think it would be unlikely at this time.

I am very glad that we have gotten as far as we have.

Thank you very much for being with us.

This meeting is hereby adjourned.

[Thereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the committee adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.]