Smart Growth.....the UN....and YOU or See
What Not Being Informed Can Do for You
Relating to the Agenda 21
To the framers of the U.S. Constitution, property was as sacred as life and
liberty.
The inalienable right to own, and control the use of, private property is perhaps
the single most important principle responsible for the growth and prosperity of
America. It is a right that is being systematically eroded.
Private ownership of land is not compatible with socialism, communism, or with global
governance as described by the United Nations.
Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Mao - all took steps to forcefully nationalize the land as an
essential first step toward controlling their citizens.
The UN, without the use of military force, is attempting to achieve the same result.
The land policy of the United Nations was first officially articulated at the
United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I), held in Vancouver, May 31 -
June 11, 1976. Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report sets forth the UN's official policy on land.
The Preamble says:
"Land...cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals
and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land
ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of
wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may
become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development
schemes.
The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be
achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control
of land use is therefore indispensable."
Nine pages of specific policy recommendations endorsed by the participating nations
follow the Preamble, including the United States.
Here are some of those recommendations:
"Recommendation
A.1
(b) All countries should establish as a matter of urgency a national policy on human
settlements, embodying the distribution of population...over the national
territory.
(c)(v)
Such a policy should be devised to facilitate population redistribution to accord with the
availability of resources.
Recommendation
D.1
(a) Public ownership or effective control of land in the public interest is the single most
important means of achieving a more equitable distribution of the benefits of
development whilst assuring that environmental impacts are considered.
(b)
Land as a scarce resource whose management should be subject to public surveillance
or control in the interest of the nation.
(d)
Governments
must maintain full jurisdiction and exercise complete sovereignty over such land
with a view to freely planning development of human settlements.
Recommendation
D.2
(a)
Agricultural land, particularly on the periphery of urban areas, is an important
national resource; without public control land is prey to speculation and urban encroachment.
(b)
Change in the use of land...should be subject to public control and regulation.
(c)
Such control may be exercised through:
(i)
Zoning and land-use planning as a basic instrument of land policy in general and of
control of land-use changes in particular;
(ii)
Direct intervention, e.g. the creation of land reserves and land banks,
purchase, compensated expropriation and/or pre-emption, acquisition of
development rights, conditioned leasing of public and communal land, formation
of public and mixed development enterprises;
(iii)
Legal controls, e.g. compulsory registration, changes in administrative boundaries,
development building and local permits, assembly and replotting.
Recommendation
D.3
(a) Excessive profits resulting from the increase in land value due to development and change
in use are one of the principal causes of the concentration of wealth in private
hands.
Taxation should not be seen only as a source of revenue for the community but also as a powerful
tool to encourage development of desirable locations, to exercise a controlling effect on the land market and to redistribute to the
public at large the benefits of the unearned increase in land values.
(b)
The unearned increment resulting from the rise in land values resulting from change in use of land, from public investment or decision or due to the general growth of the community must be subject to appropriate recapture by public bodies.
Recommendation
D.4
(a)
Public ownership of land cannot be an end in itself; it is justified in so far as it is exercised in favor of the common good rather than to protect the interests of the already privileged.
(b)
Public ownership should be used to secure and control areas of urban expansion and protection; and to implement urban and rural land reform processes, and supply serviced land at price levels which can secure socially acceptable patterns of development.
Recommendation
D.5
(b)
Past patterns of ownership rights should be transformed to match the changing needs of society and be collectively beneficial.
(c)(v)
Methods for the separation of land ownership rights from development rights, the latter to be entrusted to a public authority."
The
official U.S. delegation that endorsed these recommendations includes familiar names. Carla A. Hills,
then-Secretary of Housing and Urban Development became George Bush's Chief trade negotiator. William
K. Reilly, then-head of the Conservation Foundation, became Bush's Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Among
the NGOs (non-government organizations) present, were: International Planned Parenthood Federation; World Federation of United Nations Associations;
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); World Association of
World Federalists; Friends of the Earth; National Audubon Society; National
Parks and Conservation Association; Natural Resources Defense Council; and the
Sierra Club.1
These
ideas came to America in the form of the Federal Land Use Planning Act which
failed twice in Congress during the 1970s. Federal regions were created and the
principles of the UN land policy were implemented administratively to the
maximum extent possible. NGOs were at work even then, lobbying for the
implementation of UN land policy at the state and local level. Both Florida and
Oregon enacted state Comprehensive Planning Acts. Florida created state
districts and multi-county agencies to govern land and water use. Most states,
however, were slow to embrace the UN initiative toward centralized planning and
land
management.
By
1992, the UN had learned to tone down its language and strengthen its arguments.
The UN, working in collaboration with its incredible NGO structure, operating at
the behest of International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); the
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF); and the World Resources Institute (WRI), made
sure that the decade of the 1980s was awash with propaganda about the loss of
biodiversity and the threat of global warming.
The
foundation for the propaganda campaign may be found in three publications
published jointly by the UN and its NGO collaborators: World
Conservation Strategy, (UNEP,
IUCN, WWF, 1980); Caring
for the Earth,
(UNEP, IUCN, WWF, 1991); and GlobalBiodiversity
Strategy, (UNEP,
IUCN, WRI, 1992). These documents, along with OurCommon
Future,
the report of the 1987 Brundtland Commission (UN Commission on Environment and
Development) set the stage for Earth Summit II, the UN Conference on Environment
and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
This
conference produced Agenda
21,
the ultimate plan of action to save the world from human activity. The document
echos the 1976 document on land use policy, though in somewhat muted terms.
From
Section II, Chapter 10 (page 84):
"Land
is normally defined as a physical entity in terms of its topography and spatial
nature; a broader integrative view also includes natural resources: the solid,
minerals, water and biota that the land comprises. Expanding human requirements
and economic activities are placing ever-increasing pressures on land resources,
creating competition and conflicts and resulting in suboptimal use of both land
and land resources.
It
is now essential to resolve these conflicts and move towards more effective and
efficient use of land and its natural resources.
Opportunities
to allocate land to different uses arise in the course of major settlement or
development projects or in a sequential fashion as land becomes available on the
market. This provides opportunities...to assign protected status for
conservation of biological diversity or critical ecological services.
Objective
10.5
"The
broad objective is to facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the
greatest sustainable
benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and integrated
management of land resources:
(a)
To review and develop policies to support the best possible use of land and the
sustainable management of land resources, by not later than 1996;
(b)
To improve and strengthen planning, management and evaluation systems for land
and land resources, by not later than 2000;
(d)
To create mechanisms to
facilitate the active involvement and participation of all concerned,
particularly communities and people at the local level,
in decision-making on land use and management, by not later than 1996.
Activities
10.6:
"(c)
Review regulatory framework, including laws, regulations and enforcement
procedures, in order to identify improvements needed to support sustainable land
use and management of land resources and restrict the transfer of productive
arable land to other uses;
(e)
Encourage the principle of delegating policy-making to the lowest level of
public authority consistent with effective action and a locally driven approach.
Activities
10.7:
"(a)
Adopt planning and management systems that facilitate the integration of
environmental components such as air, water, land and other natural resources
using landscape ecological planning for example, an ecosystem or watershed;
(b)
Adopt strategic frameworks that allow the integration of both developmental and
environmental goals; examples of those frameworks include the World Conservation
Strategy, Caring for the Earth "2
Between
1976 and 1992 a new strategy
for
land use control was devised. It is subtle, sinister, and successful. Reread
10.6(e)
above: "Encourage the principle of delegating policy-making to the lowest level
of public authority consistent with effective action and a locally driven
approach." The
reference to "public authority" here is not to elected city councils or county
commissions. The reference is to newly constituted "stakeholder councils" or
other bodies of "civil society" that consist primarily of professionals
functioning as representatives of NGOs affiliated with national and
international NGOs accredited by the United Nations.
This strategy is becoming increasingly effective.
the
Convention
on Biological Diversity, authorized the production of the Global Biodiversity
Assessment (GBA).
The
GBA
is a massive, 1,140-page document
Section
11.2.3.13 (page 767): "Property
rights are not absolute and unchanging, but rather a complex, dynamic and
shifting relationship between two or more parties, over space and time."
"Plants
and animals are objects whose degree of protection depends on the value they
represent
for human beings. Although well intentioned, this specifically anthropocentric
view leads directly to the subordination of biological diversity, and to its
sacrifice in spite of
modern
understanding of the advantages of conservation. We
should accept biodiversity as a legal subject, and supply it with adequate
rights.
This could clarify the principle that biodiversity is not available for
uncontrolled human use. Contrary to current custom,
it would therefore become necessary to justify any interference with
biodiversity, and to provide proof that human interests justify the damage
caused to biodiversity."3
Under
the UN's concept of land and resource management, the
owner is not even considered as one who may have a right to determine how his
land is to be used. It is a higher authority that represents the "community" to
whom "proof" must be offered that a proposed use is justified.
This process effectively separates the right of ownership from the right of use,
an objective discussed in Recommendation D.5(c)(v) of the 1976 document. And
who, exactly, is
this "higher authority"
to whom proof must be resented? The authority envisioned by the UN is not local
elected officials, but rather local
"stakeholder councils" dominated by NGO professionals.
Most
Americans are totally unaware of this relentless, 20-year campaign by the UN to
gain control over land use around the world. Many people believe that the UN is
a distant, benevolent do-good organization that is expensive, but which has no
direct affect on America.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The
1992 Earth Summit also produced the UN Commission on Sustainable Development and
a
new international NGO called Earth Council.
Earth Council, located in Costa Rica, is headed by Maurice Strong, Secretary
General of Earth Summit I and II, the first Executive Director of the United
Nations Environment Program (UNEP), and a director of World Resources Institute
(WRI).
The
function of Earth Council is to coordinate the work of
national
councils on sustainable development. Currently more than 100 nations have
created national councils for the purpose of implementing Agenda 21 at the
national level.
In
America, The President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) was created
by Executive Order in 1993, and presented its report, Sustainable
America, A New Consensus,
in
1995.
It is a compilation of 154 action items patterned after Agenda 21, to be
implemented in America.
At
the November, 1995 meeting of the PCSD, Council members who were also Cabinet
members announced that at least 67 of the action items could be implemented
"administratively," without Congressional involvement.
The
document provides 16 "We Believe" statements, which embrace the 27 principles
articulated in the Rio Declaration from Earth Summit II. Among those statements
is this:
"We
need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions; more
rapid change; and more sensible use of human, natural, and financial resources
in achieving our goals."
The
report says further:
"Society
outside of government, civil society, is demanding a greater role in
governmental decisions, while at the same time impatiently seeking solutions
outside government's power to decide. Our most important finding is the
potential power of and growing desire for decision processes that promote direct
and meaningful interaction involving people in decisions that affect
them."
The
election process and representative government created by the U.S. Constitution
is clearly unacceptable to the PCSD, which wants "civil society" (read: NGO
dominated stakeholder councils) to become the local authority for not only land
use decisions, but for a variety of other policy decisions as well.
The
PCSD report says (page 113): "What has become clear is that the conflicts over
natural resources increasingly are exceeding the capacity of institutions,
processes, and mechanisms to resolve them. The Council endorses the concept of
collaborative approaches to resolving conflicts."
Conflicts
arise because:
"Privately
owned lands are most often delineated by boundaries that differ from the
geographic boundaries of the natural system of which they are a part. Therefore,
individual or private decisions can have negative ramifications. For example,
private decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in
severe
ecological
or aesthetic consequences to both the natural system and to communities outside
landowner boundaries."
In
plain English, the PCSD has determined that private land owners make land use
decisions that are inconsistent with the land use principles laid down in the
Global Biodiversity Assessment, Agenda 21, and the 1976 report of the UN
Commission on Human Settlements.
To
solve this problem, the PCSD issued the following recommendations (page 115):
"Action 1. The President should issue an executive order directing federal
agencies under the Government Performance and Results Act to promote
voluntary, multi-stakeholder, collaborative approaches toward managing and
restoring natural resources.
Action
2. Governors can issue similar directives to encourage state agencies to
participate in and promote
voluntary, multi-stakeholder, collaborative approaches.
Action
3. Public and private leaders (within the constraints of antitrust concerns),
community institutions, non-governmental organizations, and individual citizens
can take collective responsibility for practicing environmental stewardship
through voluntary, multi-stakeholder, collaborative approaches.
Action
4. The federal government should play a more active role in building consensus
on difficult issues and identifying actions that would allow stakeholders to
work together toward
common
goals. Both Congress and the executive branch should evaluate the extent to
which the Federal Advisory Committee Act poses a barrier to successful
multi-stakeholder processes, and they should amend regulations to help
accomplish this."4
Interestingly,
a recommendation of the PCSD's Population and Consumption Task Force, which was
not included in the final report, said:
"The President and Congress should authorize and appoint a national commission
to develop a national strategy to address changes in national population
distribution that have negative impacts on sustainable development."5
Compare this recommendation to Recommendation A.1 from the 1976 Habitat
document.
Implementation
of the UN's land use philosophy is well under way in America, and is now being
accelerated through the use of the "collaborative process" using stakeholder
councils. The 1973 Endangered Species Act has been expanded administratively to
now cover not only endangered species, but the habitat which a listed species
may wish to use, even though the habitat may be privately owned. This policy
breathes life into the GBA recommendation to extend legal rights to
biodiversity. It, in fact, clarifies "the principle that biodiversity is not
available for uncontrolled human use."
The
legal status of biodiversity has been further elevated by the Vice President's
"Ecosystem
Management Policy," which places biodiversity protection at the same priority
level as human health,
and which further instructs officials to consider human
beings to be a "biological resource" in
all ecosystem management activities.
Consistent
with other PCSD recommendations, the federal government is actively funding
stakeholder councils throughout the country to begin the process of creating
"sustainable communities"
as envisioned in Agenda 21. Sustainable
communities are essential to the concept of land use and resource management
envisioned by the Global Biodiversity
Assessment,
and required by the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Ultimately, if the UN plan is realized, at least half of the land area of North
America will be converted to wilderness, off limits to human beings. An
additional 25% will be controlled by government in collaboration with "civil
society" in which individuals will have to prove that a proposed use will not
harm biodiversity. Humans are to be relocated into "sustainable communities"
that are described as "islands of human habitat" surrounded by natural areas.
It
is now clear that the UN's land use policies, though refined over time, have had
a predetermined objective from the very beginning. That objective, as bizarre as
it may sound, is to place all land and natural resources under the ultimate
authority of the UN. The official report of the UN-funded Commission on Global
Governance, Our
Global lNeighborhood,
calls for placing "the global commons" under the direct authority of the UN
Trusteeship Council, and defines "global commons" to be: "The atmosphere, outer
space, the oceans beyond national jurisdiction and the related environment and
life-support systems that contribute to the support of human life."6 Moreover,
the UN Trusteeship Council is to be selected from "civil society"
representatives. The Commission on Global Governance also calls for the creation
of a new "Petitions Council" which would receive petitions from "Stakeholder
Councils" in each nation for the purpose of directing the
petitions
to
the correct UN agency for resolution and enforcement actions.
The
objectives are real, published in official documents, and the process is well
underway. The strategy originated with the IUCN, WWF, and the WRI, and is being
advanced at the policy level through UN organizations, international treaties
and agreements, and on the ground through a massive organization of "civil
society" NGOs. Here, only the highest peaks of UN activity have been identified.
Virtually every activity, conference, and action plan devised by the UN since
the early 1970s has been aiming toward the ultimate objective of eventual global
governance founded upon the principles of collectivism, central planning,
and
omnipotent
enforcement, disguised by the language of equity, social justice, and
environmental protection.
Sadly,
American policy has failed to honor the Constitutional commitment to life,
liberty and property. The next four years in America may well be the historic
watershed, which will be seen by future generations as the point from which the
blessings of freedom were shared with the entire world, or the point from which
the world began its descent into global tyranny.