Land Tenure - Part I
One topic which so far has escaped attention is the reform of land ownership. Because in the future, private ownership of land will be prohibited. This was outlined already in 1976, via UN Habitat.
The document in question is the ‘REPORT OF HABITAT: UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON HUMAN SETTLEMENTS‘1. The document in question specifically is the ‘Vancouver Declaration’.
‘13. Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, 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. Social justice, urban renewal, and development, 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.‘
And just to hammer home -
‘The Committee unanimously affirmed that land was a scarce resource and that, because of its unique nature and the crucial role that it plays in human settlements, it could not be treated as an ordinary asset controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures an the initiatives of the market. The pattern of land use should be determined by the long-term interests of the community, especially since decisions on location of activities and therefore of specific land uses have a long-lasting effect on the pattern and structure of human settlements. The Committee emphasized that land is also a primary element in the natural and man-made environment and a crucial link in an often delicate balance. Public ownership of land is justified and should be exercised in the interest of the society and private land ownership should be regulated and made to conform with the economic and social development requirements of a country.‘
But things are never that simple with the ‘honest’ and ‘transparent’ organisation named the ‘United Nations’. The likelihood of them coming right out and admitting to eliminating private ownership is essentially zero - unless you develop an understanding of their manipulative and intentionally opaque language.
What we do however know, is that UNESCO launched its Man and the Biosphere programme in 1971, and their Biosphere Reserve programme was officially launched in 1976. So with that in mind - here’s the UNESCO 1984 release; ‘Nature and Resources‘2.
And we very, very quickly discover that
‘… an Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves was adopted by the International Co-ordinating Council of the Programme on Man and the Biosphere at its eighth session (Paris, 3-8 December 1984) and is presented in this document as a programme framework. This framework identifies a range of actions for consideration by governments and concerned international organizations in developing the multiple functions of biosphere reserves within the overall context of the MAB Programme. Those actions concretely serve the implementation of the World Conservation Strategy.‘
Two things. The World Conservation Strategy is an IUCN document3. Yes, that of an NGO. We’re not even speaking severely-short-of-democracy United Nations, we are actively discussing an entirely external organisation. And whose plan UNESCO clearly seek to implement. Democratically, I’m sure they’ll claim. It’s to protect us.
‘While a number of actions are of a permanent nature, the stress is placed on activities which can be carried out in the period 1985- 89. In summary, governments and international organizations are invited to undertake activities which will improve and expand the international biosphere reserve network…‘
Isn’t that something? 1984 was when Thomas Lovejoy suggested Debt-for-Nature Swaps in the New York Times, and….
… 1987 was when the first three Debt-for-Nature Swaps went through! Another coincidence!
The baseline function of said reserves are to -
‘… inventories of flora and fauna and their uses; monitoring; preparation of a history of research; establishment of research facilities and research programmes; establishment of training and education programmes; and preparation of a management plan which addresses biosphere reserve functions. The approved Action Plan, together with an indication of financing requirements, will be submitted in due course for consideration by the governing organs of UNEP, Unesco, FAO and IUCN.‘
… it’s… pretty much in line with suggestions in the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference, and that’s no coincidence of course, because that conference also suggested the creation of the Biosphere Reserves [recommendation 15].
From the introduction -
‘The Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme, launched in 1971, is a worldwide programme of international scientific co-operation dealing with people-environment interactions in the whole range of bioclimatic and geographic situations of the biosphere-from polar to tropical zones, from islands and coastal areas to high mountain regions, from sparsely populated regions to dense human settlements. Research under the MAB Programme is designed to provide the information needed to solve practical problems of resource management. It also aims to fill the still significant gaps in the understanding of the structure and function of ecosystems, and of the impact of different types of human intervention. Key ingredients in the MAB Programme are the involvement of decision-makers and local people in research projects, training and demonstration in the field and the pooling of disciplines from the social, biological and physical sciences in addressing complex environmental problems.‘
The stated purpose is to solve problems related to resource management, and to ‘study’ the impacts of human interference, which I can assure you in their book will practically always be negative. The involvement of ‘decision-makers’ is hinting at land management, but not quite.
We skip down to 4, because there’s an interesting inclusion -
‘The first biosphere reserves were designated in 1976. Subsequently, the network has grown steadily until 1984; at present, it consists of a total of 243 in 65 countries. In this same period, co-operation with other international organizations involved with conservation and sustainable development has been strengthened, particularly the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). Representatives of these organizations meet together regularly through the Ecosystem Conservation Group to co-ordinate action‘
Look up ‘sustainable development’ just about anywhere. I will bet you that Brundtland, 1987, will come up. Not UNESCO, 1984, and certainly not IUCN, 1980. But when you look at that 1980 report, it expressly states so, right on its front page.
‘Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development’.
In reality, you can track it back further, because ‘Only One Earth’4 by Barbara ‘Spaceship Earth’ Ward and Rene ‘Rockefeller’ Dubos discussed much the same issues, in the early 1970s. It just wasn’t called as such, but it further drags in ‘Limits to Growth’, ‘Planetary Boundaries’, ‘Planetary Justice’, and even calls for using ‘Science as an imperative’. Granted, this is the quick UNESCO Courier summary, but it’s not really a particularly noteworthy - nor exciting - book.
The other interestig inclusion is that of the ‘Ecosystem Conservation Group‘. I’m sure it’ll come as a shock, shock, that the UN has not made any of their documents available on their website5.
‘IUCN considers that biosphere reserves constitute a useful concept for regional planning in which conservation is linked directly with sustainable development, in line with the World Conservation Strategy‘
… wait - who’s in charge of this drive, again? Is it UNESCO, or the IUCN? As for the characteristics -
‘The main characteristics of biosphere reserves are: (a) Biosphere reserves are protected areas of representative terrestrial and coastal environments which have been internationally recognized for their value in conservation and in providing the scientific knowledge, skills and human values to support sustainable development…‘
And back to more sustainable development. In 1984 - no really. Sure is a lot of ‘sustainable development’ going on in this 1984 document, considering - officially - Brundtland is given credit for this term.
‘(ii) areas suitable for experimental manipulation to develop, assess and demonstrate the methods for sustainable development; (iii) examples of harmonious landscapes resulting from traditional patterns of land use; (iv) examples of modified or degraded ecosystems that are suitable for restoration to natural or near-natural conditions.‘
And yet another ‘sustainable development’, followed by ‘traditional patterns of land use’, to which we shall return. Finally, lands ‘suitable for restoration’, which is where your taxes are increasingly going at present through the GEF. No, really.
Furthermore, the Biosphere Reserves also create a call for ‘buffer zones’ which also should see its ‘uses managed’, where said decisions could include agricultural use, or settlement use, though this may ‘vary in space and time’… should valuable minerals be discovered on said ‘buffer zones’, no doubt. Consequently, total reserves are not just what’s officially listed, because buffer zones are not included in those figures6.
After searching for the size of the buffer zones, I asked ChatGPT, which unfurtunately kicked off by lying about the total size of the buffer zone, and… well, everything else in that regard. Because the truth… well, you can’t handle it. That’s the truth.
‘Biosphere reserves must have adequate long-term legislative, regulatory or institutional protection. Biosphere reserves may coincide with or incorporate existing or proposed protected areas, such as national parks or protected research sites.‘
And again, we’re flirting with an outright admission, but no dice. And of course, urban parks are also considered reserves -
‘People should be considered as part of a biosphere reserve.‘
And while this may appear harmless, it’s not. It means those ‘indigenous peoples’ will be managed on equal footing with every other biodiversity specie on the ‘managed landscape’.
‘Normally, there is no need for changes in land-holding or regulation following the designation of a biosphere reserve except where changes are required to ensure the strict protection of the core area or of specific research sites.‘
… and it’s just so, titillatingly close to an admission, but the people writing this knew exactly where the line in the sand was drawn, and they won’t cross it. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t other interesting parts to the document.
‘It should, perhaps, be looked upon less as a 'reserve' than as an area of ecologically representative landscape in which land-use is controlled, but may range from complete protection to intensive, yet sustainable, production‘
Controlled land-use. Look, it’s pretty clear where they’re going with this, but the admission is still not in. It’s frustrating, sure, but it’s just the game they play.
Plausible deniability.
The document then goes on to include the use of said conserved genetic material, mention its applicability to new pharmaceuticals for ultimately human well-being, and amusingly, in a Jurassic Park like manner, state that the genetic material might be useful for ‘re-establishing the indigenous species in areas where they have been eradicated’.
Point 11 then delivers more frustration -
‘A unique aspect of biosphere reserves is the conservation, where practicable, of traditional land use systems, illustrating harmonious relationships between indigenous populations and the environment. These systems often reflect centuries of human experience and can provide information of immense value in improving the productivity and sustainability of modern land use and management practices.‘
It won’t of course. Because the ‘Green Revolution’ was what triggered a yield breakthrough, and no quantity of mention of those ‘indigenous peoples’ and their ‘traditional methods‘ will change that whatsoever.
‘… involved in planning and implementing the biosphere reserve concept typically includes biosphere reserve administrators, natural and social scientists, resource managers, environmental and development interests, government decision-makers and local people.‘
Let’s skip to the Action Plan, because most of this is straight down the middle -
‘There are three main thrusts in the programme framework of the Action Plan, all designed to promote and implement the concept of the biosphere reserve and to make it a more effective agent for sustainable development. These are: improving and expanding the network; using the network to increase knowledge; and making biosphere reserves more effective in demonstrating the value of integrating conservation and development.‘
The former again loops in the 1985-89 timeframe, the knowledge components obviously includes global surveillance, and the integration yet again loops in the IUCN World Conservation Strategy but also the UN Plan to Combat Desertification.
And the various governments should be encourared to submit reserves, activities should be globally planned, and remote sensing tech (satellite surveillance) should be rolled out. Finally, a Biosphere Reserve Scientific Advisory Panel should be created by UNESCO.
Objective 2 is somewhat more interesting -
‘The long-term security of biosphere reserves should be assured through legal instruments, regulations or a management framework directly applicable to the biosphere reserve or to its separate management units and land ownerships.‘
But the document is chock full of almost-but-not-quite;
‘Protection in these areas may involve laws or regulations to promote land uses which are compatible with the biosphere reserve.‘
No, it’s simply no good. There is no admission here, even if it does state that all sites should be monitored, data integrated, be compatible, and used for sakes of prediction of environmental changes. All of that is there, but not the one, singular thing for which we were looking.
And we won’t find it on the final pages either - which I shall include regardless mainly because I hate jobs half done.
GEMS is dragged in, as is the ICSU, standardisation of data collection, long-term monitoring of climate, integrated regional planning, and even the World Bank is included through one of the more interesting ‘actions’ (25) -
‘In order to ensure that large development projects contain the requisite elements of conservation, the World Bank and other international and regional development-financing organizations should ensure that any development project financed by them should not affect the basic functions of existing biosphere reserves. These organizations should support the establishment of biosphere reserves as a compensatory measure to mitigate the adverse ecological effects of the development project, financed by them, which would affect major ecosystems.‘
In other words, World Bank ‘aid’ should be retargeted, ensuring the 3rd world nations play ball with this strategy. And finally, it’s recommended that UNESCO ‘strengthen the environmental education’ and ‘include conservation in the curricula’. They can do that, because all nations subscribing to UNESCO accept a certain level of control from above to dictate the curriculum.
All in all, so, so close, but no cigar. In earlier days, at this stage, I’d have been pretty frustrated - but you shouldn’t be. Because it’s pretty damn obvious what the document repeatedly hints at, it’s just that there no admission. So rather than be upset by what’s lacking, let’s establish that there is a trail somewhere, and that it cannot be far away. There’s simply too much smoke.
The next stop is dragged in via the above - ‘Traditional Land Tenures and Land Use Systems’7, by the World Bank, 1983. And while this document does indeed clarity that ‘traditional land-use patterns’ could mean… virtually anything, it again doesn’t really do much in terms of discovering when land-use tenure was redefined, nor include any mention of expropriation or redistribution whatsoever.
… by ‘anything’ I really do mean ‘anything’, for the record -
The document, in short, is for use by people in World Bank capacity, working on projects in nations without formalised land tenure law. It’s not quite what we look for. So, let’s do a final step back in time to that 1980 document by the IUCN.
The chapter of particular interest is the tenth -
‘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.‘
It’s a strong start, and it continues -
‘Every use of the land, fresh waters and the sea has its own site requirements, as well as different degrees of compatibility with other uses.‘
… but again - no authority, no redistribution, no expropriation… however -
‘An interdisciplinary approach is required. The evaluation process requires the integration of contributions from ecology and related natural sciences, the technologies of ecosystem use (agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and so on), economics and sociology.‘
Which is a very, very interesting list, and highly relevant to a different article in progress… which isn’t quite ready for release just yet.
‘An assessment of environmental effwts is an activity designed to identify, predict, interpret and communicate information about the effects of an action-be it a policy, programme, legislative proposal, engineering project or other operation with environmental implications-on human health and well-being, including the well-being of ecosystems on which human survival depends. Environmental assessments are a means of ensuring that ecological and social information is included with physical and economic information as the basis for making decisions.‘
Which also is of interest; much like the Social Determinants of Health deals with the derivative of health itself, as does the ‘well-being of ecosystems’ deal with the derivative of ‘human well-being’.
‘Environmental assessments should be an integral part of the planning of all major actions (both public and private), requiring government authorization.‘
Again, this report is close, but no cigar. We’ll return to it soon, but for the time being, this is yet another dead end. There are a lot of those.
In fact, there are times where I’ve spend days and days tracking down the title of a single, pivotal report. On occasion, that report then further took days and days to locate. But there’s one keyword which I see again, and again, and over again -
Integrated.
And when the World Bank, GEF and so forth speak of projects involving geographical ranges, they speak of the ‘Landscape Approach’, which in fact is synonymous with -
‘Integrated Landscape Management’.
And that’s suddenly where we find outselves back in 1992. Because though we have gone through the Convention on Biological Diversity and the UNFCCC quite regularly, the third major document of the Earth Summit we’ve largely steered clear of.
Agenda 218.
And not only does it contain two sections with clear reference to said integrated approach, but it even contains a link back to General Assembly resolution 44/2289.
And let’s just deal with that first. In relatively short order, it deals with the ‘disruption of the ecological balance’, and ‘climate change, depletion of the Ozone layer, transboundary air and water pollution, the contamination of the oceans and seas and degradation of land resources, including drought and desertification‘.
And this is then followed through the addition, also observable in the 1982 World Charter for Nature -
‘States have the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their environmental policies and also reaffirms their responsibility to ensure that activities within their jusistiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other states‘
Which, given the UNFCCC/CBD control mechanism, adds rather a serious ‘exception’ meaning that nations in fact do NOT have said rights, or at least, it’s not quite that straightforward. But the document also - very interestingly - drags in the state of third world economies -
‘Reaffirms the serious external indebtedness of developing countries and other countries with serious debt-servicing problems has to be addressed in an efficient and urgent manner in order to enable those countries to contribute fully and in accordance with their capacities and responsibilities to global efforts to protect and enhance the environment‘
Which is where those Debt-for-Nature Swaps once again comes in handy, because the official story is that the funds made available will be used for environmental restoration and conservation in general. It then lists a range of environmental issues, inclusive of the list above, plus the ‘protection and management of land resources by, inter alia, combating deforestation, desertification and drought’.
And further down, it adds ‘with a view to ensuring a more integrated approach to problems of environment’, before once again - indirectly - advertising Debt-for-Nature Swaps -
‘To identify ways and means of providing new and additional financial resources, particularly to developing countries, for environmentally sound development programmes and objectives‘
Now, back to Agenda 21’s Chapter 10 -
‘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 soils, minerals, water and biota that the land comprises. These components are organized in ecosystems which provide a variety of services essential to the maintenance of the integrity of life-support systems and the productive capacity of the environment. Land resources are used in ways that take advantage of all these characteristics.’
Those spotting ‘ecosystem services’ in there - well done.
'Land is a finite resource, while the natural resources it supports can vary over time and according to management conditions… If, in the future, human requirements are to be met in a sustainable manner, it is now essential to resolve these conflicts and move towards more effective and efficient use of land and its natural resources.’
Abandon the old, but for what, exactly?
’Integrated physical and land-use planning and management is an eminently practical way to achieve this. By examining all uses of land in an integrated manner, it makes it possible to minimize conflicts, to make the most efficient trade-offs and to link social and economic development with environmental protection and enhancement, thus helping to achieve the objectives of sustainable development.’
Ah yes, integrated planning and management. Central planning.
’The present chapter consists of one programme area, the integrated approach to the planning and management of land resources, which deals with the reorganization and, where necessary, some strengthening of the decision-making structure, including existing policies, planning and management procedures and methods that can assist in putting in place an integrated approach to land resources.‘
… and they are straight up telling you they need to centralise power in order to get this through.
‘Opportunities to allocate land to different uses arise in the course of major settlement or development projects or in a sequential fashion as lands become available on the market. This in turn provides opportunities to support traditional patterns of sustainable land management or to assign protected status for conservation of biological diversity or critical ecological services.‘
Ie, this programme can be achieved through either large-scale settlements, or very slow, progressive realisation through - let’s face it - a proxy buying up land as it becomes available. Hey, isn’t that what BlackRock and Vanguard presently do...?
‘Governments at the appropriate level, with the support of regional and international organizations, should ensure that policies and policy instruments support the best possible land use and sustainable management of land resources‘
Naturally, the key is who get to dictate what ‘appropriate’ entails, and those international organisations… I’m sure you can venture a guess. Finally, central planning has never outcompeted private ownership, and it won’t this time either.
‘Review the 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 restricts the transfer of productive arable land to other uses;‘
All of these can be summed up in one sentence - centralisation of power. Because those ‘improvements’ will not be democratically chosen, and the land use and restrictions will be used to curtail economic activity, not enable it.
The part on ‘Strengthening information systems‘ relates to global surveillance through GEMS, with a drive to ensure all data remains globally compatible, with open exchange of information, and even covertly outlines a public-private-partnership. ‘Enhancing scientific understanding of the land resources system‘ then continues -
‘Assessment of land potential capability and ecosystem functions;‘
‘Ecosystemic interactions and interactions between land resources and social, economic and environmental systems;‘
‘Developing indicators of sustainability for land resources, taking into account environmental, economic, social, demographic, cultural and political factors.‘
The first two relate to pure economic optimisation, and the latter meshes in with the GEMS global surveillance; it’s the Determinants of Health, which ultimately comes down to representing human health via indicators, which also - very much - is the plan in regards to the environment and biodiversity in general.
We finally have a information relating to education and training, as well as the ‘strengthening’ of local administration, aka ‘centralisation of power’.
It’s a nasty, nasty document, this one. And it’s clear as day what the intent is - but we still look for the document promoting an active as opposed to passive approach.
For the record, when I above so confidently stated that it’s about global surveillance and specifically GEMS, there’s a reason. It’s expressly mentioned later on in the document, along with GRID (the associated database), and even the drive to merge surveillance data streams under a single organisational umbrella.
So where does that leave us? Well, sure - we don’t yet have the ‘aha’ moment, but we’re close. We’ve established that land redistribution is all over Agenda 21, and working in unison with global surveillance. We’ve established said global surveillance mixes in the Determinants of Health, that said should be used to govern sustainable development, that lands should covertly be purchased slowly but surely, that ecosystem services already were considered at this stage, and that sovereign legal systems will need to change to something more closely resembling… central planning.
We’ve also established that this is about ‘Integrated Landscape Planning’ which essentially is broadly the same as the ‘Landscape Approach’, i.e. the spatial definition used by the ‘Ecosystem Approach’, which again meshes with the central planning aspect.
We’ve also seen how ‘sustainable development’ in fact was launched through the IUCN in 1980, and how UNESCO were intent on pushing NGO policy through in the most undemocratic manner possible. And we’ve seen how ‘new and innovative’ financing methods became available through Debt-for-Nature Swaps - amazingly, just in time as the need for a such was established.
And we’ve also seen how ‘traditional patterns of land use‘ can easily be used to drive through any definition of land ownership, and we also saw the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme dragged into the picture, along with the Biosphere Reserves.
In other words, just about every major topic discussed on this substack has been dragged in, one way or another.
It really is all connected.
And in part two, we will go through contemporary - active - efforts.
So they want to own everything.
Jeez.
Ownership is responsibility by definition.
Best spread out
Adaptive response (productivity) is at its peak this way.