Caring for the Earth

It’s been a long journey. But we haven’t yet discussed its purpose.

Perhaps the International Union for the Conservation of Nature can provide a hint.

---

Let’s begin with a brief summary of recent posts. ‘Crisis Economics’ examines the gradual shift of macroeconomic policy control into the hands of unelected central bankers, and outlines how future crises will be solved through further Quantitative Easing - a strategy which primarily benefits those central banks.

Crisis Economics

‘In Tandem’ refers to a November, 2023 report by the Fabian Society, which proposes that the Bank of England - and other fundamentally unelected organisations - should have the ability to influence fiscal policy, traditionally the responsibility of the Treasury. This is framed as a form of ‘cooperation’, enabling ‘monetary policy flexibility’, supposedly enabling further cooperation ‘for the common good’, with two such examples cited being inequality and environmentalism.

In Tandem

This cooperation aims to address specific objectives - such as inequality or environmentalism - and can be viewed as a public-private-partnership for the common good. This approach is familiar territory - specifically, it aligns with corporatism, and a specialised version thereof can be seen in Lenin’s New Economic Policy.

The New Economic Policy

Since 1998, the United Nations has progressively implemented a contemporary version of corporatism through Wolfgang Reinicke’s ‘Trisectoral Network’ approach… an approach that bears a strong resemblance to Lenin’s implementation.

The Rise of Ethical Authoritarianism

Trisectoral Networks

However, to make a model derived from communism more acceptable, it has to take on a more palatable name - enter ‘Cosmopolitanism’.

Cosmopolitanism

However, the core concept of cooperating for the common good - particularly in the context of environmentalism - has a somewhat sketchy history leading up to the pivotal Earth Summit in Rio, 1992.

A Climate Chronology

And that conveniently delivers us to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s ‘Caring for the Earth’, published in 1991¹, which begins through delivering ‘A message to the world‘ -

‘Humanity must live within the carrying capacity of the Earth. There is no other rational option in the longer term... Our new approach must meet two fundamental requirements. One is to secure a widespread and deeply-held commitment to a new ethic, the ethic for sustainable living, and to translate its principles into practice‘

Making clear that this report relates to a Planetary Ethic for Sustainable Living.

But truth is… this document isn’t terribly exciting. We’re better off spending our time elsewhere - which is convenient we have rather a lot of material to go through. But let’s have a brief look at Part 1 - ‘Principles for Sustainable Living’, which could not possibly make it much more express -

‘An ethic based on respect and care for each other and the Earth is the foundation for sustainable living.‘

This is about an ethic, and that ethic relates to sustainable living.

‘All life on earth, with soil, water and air, constitutes a great, interdependent system the biosphere. Disturbing one component can affect the whole. Our survival depends on the use of other species, but it is a matter of ethics, as well as practicality, that we ensure their survival and safeguard their habitats.‘

The entire message resonates strongly with the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference, which marked the launch of the primary part of the operation.

Use and Conservation of the Biosphere

‘Four actions are needed to implement this principle… the ethic for sustainable living should be developed by a dialogue… States should adopt a Universal Declaration and Covenant on Sustainability that commits them to the world ethic… people in all walks of life should incorporate the ethic into codes… a new world organization should be established to watch over the implementation of the world ethic and draw public attention to major breaches of it.‘

That ‘new ethic’ is damn important, and should positively be fused into all walks of life. But is there a timeline? Oh, but there is -

‘The network linking national groups, and the new world organization, should be established by 1993. By 1995 national statements upholding the world ethic should have been adopted in 50 countries, …‘

I’m not sure how much of this did take place, but 1993 marked the year of Hans Kung at the Parliament of the World’s Religions floated his ‘A Global Ethic’.

A Global Ethic

Next follows a litany of keywords wholly aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals, including calls for improved health standards (including immunisation), safe water, universal education, malnitrition, sanitation, biodiversity conservation, pollution reductions (including greenhouse gases), all driven by the ‘precautionary principle’ which dictates a need for upper-income countries to ‘reduce resource consumption, energy use and environmental impact‘

Ultimately, this is about the carrying capacity of earth. Which, logically, calls for planetary stewardship through ‘a new (planetary) ethic’… which arrived in 2000 through Steven Rockefeller and Maurice Strong’s The Earth Charter.

The Earth Charter

But, as said, whilst this report might have stolen the headlines and been granted all the attention, the IUCN in 1980 already released their first report on Sustainble Development - a full 7 years prior to Brundtland putting a spotlight on this term². The title of this report is ‘World Conservation Strategy - Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development’³. And it… is an exceptionally dry read. But it’s important, because it’s the opening salvo in practical aspects of planetary stewardship.

The opening pages makes clear that ‘The WCS is intended to be an evolving effort‘, after which it loops in UNEP, FAO and the WWF, and finally - Maurice Strong.

The executive summary goes to outline target groups, primary objectives, reasoning, and the main obstacles, before brief chapter outlines state the objectives, definitions and requirements, before sections 8-11 include the more interesting parts relating to strategies, policies, national accounts, integrated methods, and ‘a procedure for the rational allocation of land and water uses’. Then follows reviews of legislation, principles of governmental organisation, public participation, inclusion of a ‘stronger more comprehensive international conservation law’ only to finally end with a summary.

And there’s a reason why this report is dry, because it’s very heavily compressed in terms of informational density. Section 1 follows, an ultra-compact introduction which repeatedly outlines the need for ‘a new environmental ethic’, but further finding space to call for ‘a new international economic order’, ‘human population stabilisation’, as well as the centrality of economy-social-ecology, which fundamentally is what the Sustainable Development Goals pivot about.

The Sustainable Development Goals

But in closing, it outlines its primary motive -

‘Hence the goal of the World Conservation Strategy is the integration of conservation and development to ensure that modifications to the planet do indeed secure the survival and wellbeing of all people.‘

Section 9 relates to policy making and integration of conservation and development, and this focuses on ‘policies that attempt to anticipate significant economic, social, and ecological events’, which in other words means model and future predict (a digital twin), but also adds the need for coordination with the United Nations as well as ‘other international organisations’, obviously inclusive of the IUCN itself. Ultimately, this comes down to the solution always favoured by authoritarians - planning.

The Digital Twin

Section 10 continues in this vein -

‘This section proposes the integration of conservation and development through environmental planning and rational use allocation-specifically through ecosystem evaluations, environmental assessments, and a procedure for allocating uses on the basis of such evaluations and assessments.‘

But in order to run Digital Twin modelling on a system (or an ecosystem), we need input-output analysis, a call for which is included through ‘Evaluation requires a comparison of the outputs obtained and the inputs needed for each different use.‘

It continues by outlining the decision-making process in terms of ‘optimal use’, which in short comes down to… multi-dimensional dot products, involving factors related to economics, social, and environment.

Input-Output Analysis

Sections 8 and 15 make the case for NGO inclusion, not only ‘to help foster a conservation ethic’ but further to perform monitoring (survellance) on species, and help draft international legislation - with a range of key conventions included.

Chatper 11 deals with legislation and organisation, and it requests a coordinating mechanism, the assignment of rights and responsibilities, comprehensive conservation legislation, which ‘should provide for the planning of land and water uses’, with special attention called for in relation to the enforcement of said legislation law.

If agencies do not exist to facilitate this coordination they should be created, and said agency should be granted… a substantial transfer of power, as practically anything related to any use of the biosphere is included in its mandate.

Chapter 18 speaks of the global commons, where the more important part relates to the atmosphere, not least dragging in both the alleged issue of carbon dioxide (having only just established the implicit carbon consensus in 1979), along with a reference to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution which passed mere months prior to this document being published.

The World Climate Conference

Finally, section 20 outlines the need for liberalised trade, an increased flow of development aid, monetary system reform, disarmament, health for all, and… wider distribution of benefits to whole populations.

Quite the broad spectrum, and to whose advantage is especially ‘liberalised trade’?

---

This has been an extremely expedited review of, quite possibly, one of the most important documents in the history of environmental conservation and sustainable development. And it links straight up with the climate narrative, which progressively was built leading up to the World Climate Conference in 1979. But it further integrated with the 1982 World Charter for Nature⁴ in many ways, not only through the IUCN explicitly being called upon in the original call for a draft charter, but futher through its item 9, which explicitly requests - ‘The allocation of areas of the earth to various uses shall be planned…‘

The World Charter for Nature

The Keeling Curve

And this further ties in with the 1981 IUCN ‘US Strategy Conference on Biological Diversity’⁵ which eventually led to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The Convention on Biological Diversity

The key treaty of the Convention on Biological Diversity is the Ecosystem Approach which relates to integrated landscape management - ie, top-down land planning.

The Ecosystem Approach

But hopefully it should be perfectly clear how centric to this mission the ‘new ethic’ truly is. If not, here’s the world of J Ronald Engel, who in 1991 chaired the IUCN Working Group on Ethics, Culture, and Conservation⁶ -

‘Based on our work on ethics for Caring for the World: A Strategy for Sustainability (the successor to the World Conservation Strategy, which was published in 1980), the IUCN Ethics, Culture, and Conservation Working Group has been asked to write a proposal for how to develop the ethical, and spiritual dimensions of this program…‘

And to this end -

‘What is the best procedure for making ethics and culture effective components of the biodiversity strategy and action plan over the next two years?… strategy program need to be modified in order to effectively incorporate ethics and culture… What directions for research and action in ethics and culture will most effectively help conserve biodiversity?‘

Beyond clarifying that ‘Caring for the World’ is the successor document to ‘World Conservation Strategy’, what Engel here discusses - for all intents and purposes - is a strategy reminiscent of Alexander Bogdanov’s Proletkult.

Alexander Bogdanov

Engels further participated at the ‘Advancing Ethics for Living Sustainably’ workshop in 1993⁷, which further saw the participation of Steven Rockefeller who - with Maurice Strong - went on to co-author the Earth Charter in 2000.

‘The first principle of the World Conservation Strategy is an ethical imperative to "respect and care for the community of life." All the other principles in the strategy are founded upon and follow from the first. It is the argument of Caring for the Earth, then, that a universally shared set of ethical values is necessary if humanity is to address effectively the economic, social, and environmental problems that face contemporary civilization‘

And the Earth Charter, in short, was about establishing a Planetary Ethic.

… and from 1995 we have ‘Linking Values and Policy for Sustainable Development - An international strategy to build the sustainability ethic into decision-making‘⁸, in which we beyond a reference to ‘Global Ethics’ discover -

'Ethical behavior is inseparable from issues of governance'

The report further developed the idea of turning this ‘global ethic’ into legislation…

And the focus on ethics carried on beyond the Earth Charter (2000). Here’s via a 2006 ‘The Biosphere Ethics Project‘ report⁹ -

‘Ron Engel expressed that, "concern for nature is the driving pivotal purpose that is IUCN's particular mandate, and gives it access to the global ethics discussion.‘

And we’ve truly arrived at ‘Global Ethics’.

In 2009, ‘Conservation for a new era‘¹⁰ was published, through which we find -

‘The Ethics of 21st Century Conservation… Ethics are the general principles that guide human decision-making… Ethics are about collective values… they guide decisions about what we think we should do and how we think we should act.‘

And to drive home the point -

‘Ethics are necessary to inspire change, informing law, policies and research.‘

Ethics should drive legislation. Global Governance through Global (Environment) Ethics.

And this all relates to not only the IUCN. See, in 1992 the World Resources Institute published their ‘Global Biodiversity Strategy‘¹¹, through which we learn -

‘Respect and care for the community of life- An ethic based on respect and care for each other is the foundation of sustainable living.‘

… and -

‘To adopt an ethic for living sustainably, people must reexamine their values and alter their behavior. Society must promote values that support such an ethic and discourage those that are incompatible with a sustainable way of life.‘

And it appropriately finishes with a remark relating to a ‘common purpose’.

And we can even link other initiatives. Ie, the 1991 IUCN Bulletin announcing ‘Caring for the Earth’¹², after a predictable intro by Martin Holdgate -

‘The vehicle is a package of splendid words called Earth Charter and Agenda 21 that plots a course towards a world of greater equity, living sustainably, without today’s grinding poverty, guided by a new ethic of care for people and the Earth, and united in a new global alliance to fight the dragon of environmental degradation.‘

… which drags in the Earth Charter at a very early stage.

‘CESP has established a new Working Group on Red Books for Threatened Landscapes, chaired by Zev Naveh…‘

Zev Naveh is of pivotal importance, because ‘The Total Human Ecosystem’, describing a dystopian post-capitalist future controlled top-down through global surveillance, adaptive management and systems analysis, is his.

The Total Human Ecosystem

The Total Human Ecosystem draws on integrated landscape management (Ecosystem Approach), and both Zev and the IUCN have an extensive record relating to both¹³. As for Zev… well, it appears half his career pivoted about writing confusing papers in complex terminology, so allow me to translate the abstract into plain English -

The paper is about understanding and taking care of all the different parts of nature and the places where people live and work, like parks, farms, forests, and cities. In fact, we should look at these places in two ways:

1. The natural side: How plants, animals, soil, water, and the weather work together.

2. The human side: How people think about, use, and take care of these places.

To do this, lots of different types of experts - like scientists, artists, and people who plan how land is used - should work together. The goal is to make sure these places stay healthy and beautiful for people and nature to share, now and in the future.

And that doesn’t sound too bad, right? Well, about that…

‘For this purpose we have to abandon the reductionistic and positivistic assumptions, which are still widely accepted in the natural sciences. Namely that we can achieve complete scientific objectivity and predictability in the transdisciplinary study of MFLs.‘

Zev, right here, is telling you to accept uncertainty. Which is obvious, of course. Multi-variable equations are much harder to predict the outcome of. It’s why we analyse them on a per-component basis in the first place.

‘Therefore, instead of clinging to the classical scientific model of a predictive science, it is essential for landscape research to become an anticipating science, and like medicine, to become also a prescriptive science’

And this essentially means that we must forward predict landscape research, and accept that our predictions might well be completely wrong. Yet, this outcome should still be used in practise. In very short - this is about active adaptive management.

The Landscape Approach

Then follows inclusions of Jantsch and Laszlo, (general) systems theory, the request for us to ‘free our minds of rigid commitments to familiar notions of order‘ so that we can gain ‘deeper insights into the holistic nature of landscapes‘ which might well be interpreted as ‘hand power over to unelected central planners’ - especially in context of Zev’s Total Human Ecosystem. And though I could carry on, let’s finish off with the conclusion, and specifically another instance of Laszlo -

‘Our hope for a sustainable future for the macroshift 2000-2010 lies in the final sentences of Laszlo (2000, p. 114): "… we are the only species that not only acts, but can also foresee the effects of its actions... we must live up to our responsibility as stewards rather than exploiters of the complex and harmonious web of life on this planet".‘

And et voila. This is about planetary stewardship. Laced with incredibly mind-numbingly tedious and deliberately over-engineered phrasing, working to ensure that you don’t commit the mistake of… reading and comprehending the paper.

Zev Naveh is widely recognized for his contributions to Landscape Ecology¹⁴, which can be broadly understood as an integration of HT Odum’s systems-based approach in Systems Ecology¹⁵ with HW Odum’s pioneering work on spatial focus and regional perspectives in Regionalism¹⁶.

And Landscape Ecology even suggests a General Biosystems Theory.

Incidentally, the entire Odum family was awash in Rockefeller funding.

As for landscapes… well, the IUCN has written extensively on the topic, ranging from ‘Cultural landscapes and protected areas: Unfolding the linkages and synergies‘¹⁷, through ‘Linking Landscapes Exploring the relationships between World Heritage cultural landscapes and IUCN protected areas‘¹⁸… but whilst a ‘landscape’ itself simply refers to an arbitrary geographical range, what’s of actual importance here is that each of those might well be classified as protected, where the IUCN in 1994 outlined the various types of protected areas, categories, and management types - though this particular version below is a further developed version from 2008¹⁹.

In short - this is kind of like constructing a mine on a square in a game of civilization - except this is real life, about conservation status (which affects your right of access), and it’s not you playing the game.

It’s central planners running riot, in short.

This first categorisation first took place in 1969, and yes, by the IUCN of course…

… and these ‘protected landscapes’… they can also be ‘cultural’²⁰…

… and ‘landscape approaches’… can be ‘jurisdictional’²¹ (public ownership)…

And to link this to the GEF - a ‘landscape’ description of the geographical range is what’s taken to the GEF along with a lease duration and a type of ‘ecosystem service’ (like clean water or carbon credits), who structure blended finance deals intended to rob blind the Western nations (while looting prime lands in the 3rd world).

The Global Environment Facility

The Public-Private-Partnership

---

The IUCN, in other words, is all over the Global Ethic, the Landscape Approach, the Total Human Ecosystem, the Conservation of Biological Diversity, the 1982 World Charter for Nature, central planning… but let’s look at what they’re up to in contemporary settings, then head back to their origins. So here’s the 2021 ‘The Natural Resource Governance Framework‘²² -

… and allow me automate this, but let’s intersect those principles with the Malawi Principles (Ecosystem Approach), and Zev Naveh’s Total Human Ecosystem -

We further have their 2020 ‘IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions‘²³, and a 2017 ‘Call for UN to Recognize and Protect the Ocean’s Rights‘²⁴ with… The Gaia Foundation…

… and then there’s the 2016 ‘IUCN World Declaration on the Environmental Rule of Law‘²⁵ which includes calls to legislate on account on of (quack) environmental science, which via Principle 13 should be progressively updated (Hermann Cohen’s ‘Infinite Judgment’), with Principle 2 emphasising the balancing of humanity with nature (first observed in the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference), and Principle 3 adding the need to balance present versus future needs (intergenerational responsiblity), finally for Principle 1 to call for -

‘Each State, public or private entity, and individual has the obligation to care for and promote the well-being of nature, regardless of its worth to humans, and to place limits on its use and exploitation…‘

In short, this ultimately is about saddling you with -

‘The environmental rule of law is understood as the legal framework of procedural and substantive rights and obligations that incorporates the principles of ecologically sustainable development in the rule of law‘

… rights and responsibilities, which should be understood as -

‘Quantitative and qualitative modelling and visioning tools that enable planning based on best-available science and environmental ethics, enabling strategies and options that remain robust under multiple plausible futures‘

… nothing short of a ‘best available scientific consensus’ turned into an environmental ethic, leading to cultural engineering and the imprinting of principles of morality, with legislation similar drafted on basis of this very same… quack science. Or you could alternatively decide to understand all of this in the following way -

You have the responsibility to uphold the collective rights of others.

It’s just that you don’t get to decide which ‘rights’ you will have.

And that IUCN document further served as an input for the ‘Draft Global Pact for the Environment’²⁶ from 2017 through which we see… well, the entire narrative crammed into a potential, future legally binding treaty, ultimately based on the 1982 World Charter for Nature. And this really is not a joke, but it was expressly a such pact which Collegium International called for in 2002.

Crisis Economics

---

There are so many of these initiatives, and they span just about every sphere of conservation that we could not possibly even hope to go through them all²⁷. So let’s instead step in time, first to 2003, and the IUCN event at which ‘One Health’ was first used contextually²⁸, further featuring bonus inclusions of ‘Ecosystem Approach’, and ‘Ecosystem Services‘.

The Berlin Principles

ENviRON

Next, back to 1988, with an early discussion about said ‘Ecosystem Services’²⁹ (concept first discussed by Ehrlich in 1981)…

Valuing the Environment

We then have the 1972 General Assembly³⁰ proceedings, including mention of -

‘… IUCN and the governments may still bring in the alterations which may seem necessary after the forthcoming session of UNESCO's General Assembly. In fact it is primarily culture and ethics that we are concerned with in this splendid idea of a world heritage - whether it is artificial or natural..‘

… and -

‘We have all to dedicate ourselves, to discipline ourselves even to make it a religious duty to carry out the onerous task of ensuring a world worth living in for ourselves, our children, and all forms of life which are our fellow passengers on spaceship Earth.‘

… and this report further includes mention of a ‘Discussion Group on Cultivation of a New Ethic‘ (with a further report from 1967 attached³¹, and one from 1975 here³²)

The Skeleton of Science

We have confirmation³³ that - ‘It was the IUCN that effectively lobbied the UN General Assembly in 1968 to adopt Resolution #1296, which establishes a policy for "accrediting" certain NGOs‘…

… and the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference³⁴ with references to the IUCN and… just about everything that matters in contemporary context…

The 1968 Launch Event

Then we can step further back to 1965³⁵, adding detail on the UNESCO Heritage Convention…

In 1962 we had the ‘First World Conference on National Parks’³⁶ arranged by the IUCN…

Which can be traced further back to 1959³⁷, and a United Nations call for the establishment of national parks and reserves…

… and 1954 and 1956 brought us the ‘Commission on Ecology’ and ‘Commission on Landscape Planning’, respectively³⁸…

… from which we then arrive at the 1949 ‘Proceedings of the United Nations Scientific Conference on the Conservation and Utilization of Resources‘³⁹, which - with impeccable levels of precision - leads to mineral resources, fuel and energy, water, forest, land, wildlife and fish resources… which appears remarkably close to the focal points of SCOPE if you ask me… but further not forgetting a specific focus on inventories, protection, management, protective functions, and administration of forests (which this volume relates to)… which rhyme with the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere conference.

SCOPE

… and should you lack reading material, here ‘The world after all was one’⁴⁰, relating to UNESCO and the IUPN as they were named in their early years.

And I legitimately culled a lot of material. But we have finally arrived with the 1948 founding document, which outlines very early related history, which began with a conference in 1946.

‘Education of the general public in all countries in the protection of natural resources, public information and schooling at all levels.‘

They were well aware of the importance of education at an early stage, and thus, this collaboration with UNESCO came more than handy. But they further called for a world convention on the topic - which operates outside any legit democratic scope.

‘Preparation of a World Convention to serve as a basis for future international cooperation in the field of the « Protection of Nature », and to assist in the development of national legislation by the countries participating in it.‘

The predictable fearmongering was present -

‘But we also have to move quickly, for we are running a race with mankind as a whole and, if we are slow in taking vital decisions, we may finally lose the battle.‘

And… though business isn’t explicitly listed, this does rub me the wrong way. It’s sufficiently close to corporatism for me to not rest easily.

‘Membership… Governments… Public services… International (inter-governmental and non-governmental) organizations, institutions and associations… Non-governmental national organizations, institutions and associations…‘

Remarkably, the conference also found a space for the Conservation Foundation… which is frankly unbelievable, as it had only just been founded, along with regulars, such as UNESCO, ICSU, and IUBS.

The International Council of Scientific Unions

UNESCO: Its Purpose and its Philosophy

And two inclusions of note are Fraser Darling, and Miriam Rothschild.

Discovery

---

In context of the Bank of England we recently discussed the lack of a purpose. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature provided one. And to serve this end, ‘a new ethic’ is pivotal.

See you soon, fellow passengers of Spaceship Earth⁴¹.

---

In 1956, the International Union for the Protection of Nature merged with the International Office for the Protection of Nature⁴², which had been established in 1928 by the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS), an organization founded in 1919.

And it was the IUBS that later organised the International Biological Programme (1964–1974) - a precursor to many modern initiatives, including environmental monitoring (surveillance) and the establishment of national parks (reserves). The IBP significantly contributed to the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference and played a pivotal role in laying the foundation for contemporary conservation efforts.

1. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/CFE-003-Summ.pdf

2. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf

3. https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/wcs-004.pdf

4. https://undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbol=A%2FRES%2F35%2F7&Language=E&DeviceType=Desktop&LangRequested=False

5. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6zX0AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

6. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43597145?seq=1

7. https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/1994-054-En.pdf

8. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/1995-051.pdf

9. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/EPLP-BEP-1.pdf

10. https://iucn.org/resources/publication/conservation-new-era

11. http://pdf.wri.org/globalbiodiversitystrategy_bw.pdf

12. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/Bulletin-NS-vol22-004-En.pdf

13. https://dynamo08.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/zev-naveh-ten-major-premises-for-a-holistic-conception-of-multifunctional-landscapes2.pdf

14. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4757-2331-1

15. https://books.google.be/books/about/Systems_Ecology.html?id=IoWKMch4-fUC&redir_esc=y

16. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2776459

17. https://iucn.org/content/cultural-landscapes-and-protected-areas-unfolding-linkages-and-synergies

18. https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/2013-040.pdf

19. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/PAG-025.pdf

20. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2005-006.pdf

21. https://cdn.cdp.net/cdp-production/comfy/cms/files/files/000/007/019/original/CDP_CM_Factsheet_2022.pdf

22. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2021-031-En.pdf

23. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2020-020-En.pdf

24. https://iucn.org/news/commission-environmental-economic-and-social-policy/201710/call-un-recognize-and-protect-ocean%E2%80%99s-rights

25. https://iucn.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/world_declaration_on_the_environmental_rule_of_law_final_2017-3-17.pdf

26. https://globalpactenvironment.org/uploads/EN.pdf

27. https://iucn.org/sites/default/files/2023-08/factsheet-tr03-english_final.pdf

28. https://wcs-ahead.org/book/AHEADbook27MB.pdf

29. https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/1988-MacN-001.pdf

30. https://iucn.org/sites/default/files/2022-05/ns-sp-040.pdf

31. https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/NS-009.pdf

32. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/EPLP-009.pdf

33. https://web.archive.org/web/20070728111751/http://www.patelcenter.usf.edu/assets/pdf/IPSA-Jain.pdf

34. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000067785

35. https://web.archive.org/web/20170306155153/http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/world-heritage-challenges-for-the-millennium-2007-en.pdf

36. https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/nps/first_world.pdf

37. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/213227?ln=en&v=pdf

38. https://journals.openedition.org/sapiens/1365#tocto1n1

39. https://digitallibrary.un.org/search?f1=author&as=1&sf=title&so=a&rm=&m1=p&p1=UN%20Scientific%20Conference%20on%20the%20Conservation%20and%20Utilization%20of%20Resources%20%281949%20%3A%20Lake%20Success%2C%20N.Y.%29%20%28DHLAUTH%29456202&ln=en

40. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/contemporary-european-history/article/abs/world-after-all-was-one-the-international-environmental-network-of-unesco-and-iupn-19451950/9EADB179ADF10CF77A80A436A243B173

41. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/08/world/david-de-rothschild-modern-explorers/index.html

42. https://iucn.org/our-work/science-led-approach/iucn-libraries/history-iucn-libraries