Land Tenure - Part II
In Part I, I didn’t quite deliver what I set out to. And that wasn’t actually my original intent. But the more I kept pulling at threads, the more I realised that even land tenure reform integrates with every other aspect of the Grand Plan.
So with that in mind, let’s start by attacking the issue in the express opposite, chronological direction.
2022 marked the death of the scamdemic. But it was also the year, in which the VGGT celebrated its 10th anniversary. And the FAO celebrated said through releasing a revised version of their guidelines; ‘VOLUNTARY GUIDELINES ON THE RESPONSIBLE GOVERNANCE OF TENURE‘1.
And strap in, because you won’t be disappointed with this document. Or perhaps you will - depends on perspective, really.
First off - released in May, 2022. That’s… when everyone was distracted by Elon Musk talking about buying Twitter2. Yeah, that doesn’t sit well with me, because I have good reason to believe he’s not quite who he claims to be. But that’s for another day.
The preface goes on, outlining how this is about ‘improving the governance of tenure of land, fisheries, forests with the overarching goal of achieving food security for all’. And it then incrementally adds that -
‘It is important to note that responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests is inextricably linked with access to and management of other natural resources…‘
Right, so now it’s not just about the tenure itself, but also natural resources;
‘How people, communities and others gain access to land, fisheries and forests is defined and regulated by societies through systems of tenure. These tenure systems determine who can use which resources, for how long, and under what conditions.‘
Wait, now even more conditions are attached, including a temporal dimension;
‘The governance of tenure is a crucial element in determining if and how people, communities and others are able to acquire rights, and associated duties, to use and control land, fisheries and forests‘
And now there are even duties associated, along with exceptions in regards to the acquisition in the first place.
And we haven’t even entered the main document!
‘In response to growing and widespread interest, FAO and its partners embarked on the development of guidelines on responsible tenure governance. This initiative built on and supports the Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security (Voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Food), which were adopted by the FAO Council at its Hundred and Twenty-seventh Session in November 2004, and the 2006 International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ICARRD).‘
I have encountered the same pattern a sufficient amount of times now, so I will formulate ‘Escapekey’s Law of Information Pursuit’
The complexity of information sourcing is inversely proportional to the quantity of material discovered, once the eventual breakthrough is achieved.
And this actually makes complete sense, because commonly it’s because you haven’t deciphered the terminology used, as these ‘transparent’, ‘open’ and ‘honest’ organisations attempt to keep inconveniencies well hidden through confusing, circular, self-referencing terminology. Consequently, it’s more of a result of deciphering opaque terminology, than the actual discovery of information itself, and once you achieve said breakthrough, you find tons of documents.
The UNFAO of course is the Food and Agricultural Organisation, also part of the One Health Tri-3 and Quadripartite4.
The first two chapters relate to the Prelimanary and General Matters. Let’s skip those and instead start with chapter 3; ‘Legal recognition and allocation of tenure rights and duties‘
‘This part addresses the governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests with regard to the legal recognition of tenure rights of indigenous peoples and other communities with customary tenure systems, as well as of informal tenure rights; and the initial allocation of tenure rights to land, fisheries and forests that are owned or controlled by the public sector.‘
Whenever you hear of ‘indigenous peoples’, you can rest assured it’s not genuinely about some claimed concern relating to a tribe in the Amazonas. Rather, what this document seeks to do, is provide a common, ‘voluntary’ (for now, anyway) framework, which should be rolled out, globally. Give it time.
But the trouble is that a lot of said tenure rights are not actually registered anywhere. Consequently, when they pen a sentence as the below, you need to think what else it opens the door for -
‘States should ensure that all actions regarding the legal recognition and allocation of tenure rights and duties are consistent with their existing obligations under national and international law, and with due regard to voluntary commitments under applicable regional and international instruments.‘
First off, we spot the inclusion of ‘duties’. Because they love including those in any discussion about alleged ‘rights’. A ‘duty’ in this regard could easily be an exception clause, causing the lands to be confiscated if you, oh I don’t know, breathe too heavily. We further learn of the ‘obligations’ under national and international law, and in that regard, the former doesn’t really matter terribly. No, keep an eye on the international law, especially considering those ‘voluntary commitments’ which are sure to - very gradually - be absorbed into the international legal framework.
They’ll employ the salami tactics5, of course. It’s just two weeks, and all.
And the document really is serious about those ‘international obligations’, because those are injected here, there and everywhere.
In [8.2], we find -
‘To this end, categories of legitimate tenure rights should be clearly defined and publicized, through a transparent process, and in accordance with national law.‘
But hold up, because in [8.1] we naturally find -
‘They should ensure that all actions are consistent with their existing obligations under national and international law, and with due regard to voluntary commitments under applicable regional and international instruments.‘
See how it works? [8.3] continues -
‘Noting that there are publicly-owned land, fisheries and forests that are collectively used and managed (in some national contexts referred to as commons), States should, where applicable, recognize and protect such publicly-owned land, fisheries and forests and their related systems of collective use and management, including in processes of allocation by the State.‘
The commons on an international scale are generally referred to as the ‘Global Commons’6. But we’re not quite there yet - just as with the early rollout of the pandemic planning decades back, the approach will initially only be national.
The other noteworthy part is that - naturally - the state should be in control of the allocation of said, and said should also -
‘States should strive to establish up-to-date tenure information on land, fisheries and forests that they own or control by creating and maintaining accessible inventories. Such inventories should record the agencies responsible for administration as well as any legitimate tenure rights held by indigenous peoples and other communities with customary tenure systems and the private sector.‘
It’s a curious phrasing, because technically, a state is always the ultimate authority within her borders. Consequently the phrasing is sufficiently broad to record every square inch of land and sea in the national database. And the inclusion of ‘private sector’ somewhat confirms. Sure, it’s open for debate, but that’s the express point because it’ll always be interpreted by the authorities in the most expedient manner possible.
‘Where possible, States should ensure that the publicly-held tenure rights are recorded together with tenure rights of indigenous peoples and other communities with customary tenure systems and the private sector in a single recording system, or are linked to them by a common framework.‘
Oh wait, no need for an interpretation, there’s the express admission.
‘States should develop and publicize policies covering the allocation of tenure rights to others and, where appropriate, the delegation of responsibilities for tenure governance.‘
And again we see the conditions attached to ownership. But [8.8] is even worse -
‘States have the power to allocate tenure rights in various forms, from limited use to full ownership. Policies should recognize the range of tenure rights and right holders. Policies should specify the means of allocation of rights, such as allocation based on historical use or other means. Where necessary, those who are allocated tenure rights should be provided with support so they can enjoy their rights. States should determine whether they retain any form of control over land, fisheries and forests that have been allocated.‘
Yeah, in fact, the state might well retain the ultimate right to your land. The intent couldn’t possibly be more clear. You will ultimately not own your own land, should it be in the financial interest of connected insiders to evict you. And just to hammer home [8.9] -
‘Where possible, States should ensure that newly allocated tenure rights are recorded with other tenure rights in a single recording system, or are linked by a common framework.‘
The only thing of interest is that database. Why? We’ll get to that in a minute. In [9.3] we get a nice link to the Convention on Biological Diversity - naturally, through an ‘obligation’ - before [9.4] continues, yet again outlining those ‘international laws’.
In much the same vein, [9.8] continues -
‘Where tenure rights of indigenous peoples and other communities with customary tenure systems are formally documented, they should be recorded with other public, private and communal tenure rights to prevent competing claims.‘
The full private integration is no longer in hiding, and once again, that database. It really is very, very important... to them. But before we close out the chapter, [10.1] features a horrifying inclusion -
‘States should promote policies and laws to provide recognition to such informal tenure. The process of establishing these policies and laws should be participatory, gender sensitive and strive to make provision for technical and legal support to affected communities and individuals. In particular, States should acknowledge the emergence of informal tenure arising from large-scale migrations.‘
The only logical conclusion from this is to shut the borders. Immediately. Because otherwise, economic migrants can simply cross the border, and claim the rights to whatever territories on which they settle.
Send every single migrant to the neighbourhoods of those policians pushing these insane policies.
‘States should ensure that all actions regarding informal tenure are consistent with their existing obligations under national and international law, …‘
Yeah, you can f- right off with your ‘international law’. Shut the borders.
We now arrive at Chapter 4, which makes a chance encounter with Freddy Krueger a palatable proposition; ‘Transfers and other changes to tenure rights and duties‘.
‘This part addresses the governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests when existing rights and associated duties are transferred or reallocated through voluntary and involuntary ways through markets, transactions in tenure rights as a result of investments, land consolidation and other readjustment approaches, restitution, redistributive reforms or expropriation.‘
Yeah - that’s more like it. Any questions?
‘Where appropriate, States should recognize and facilitate fair and transparent sale and lease markets as a means of transfer of rights of use and ownership of land, fisheries and forests. Where markets in tenure rights operate, States should ensure that all actions are consistent with their existing obligations under national and international law, and with due regard to voluntary commitments under applicable regional and international instruments. Transactions of tenure rights to land, fisheries and forests should comply with national regulation of land use and not jeopardize core development goals‘
First off, I told you those international laws are not going anywhere. They are continuously reiterated, because that’s what they do with the great lies. And the chance that, say, white farmers in South Africa receive ‘fair’ compensation for their confiscated lands is essentially zip - because once again, what’s important is who does the appraising.
And not forgetting the ultimate get-out clause; ‘not jeopardize core development goals‘. What exactly does that entail? Does that mean some hack scientist could fabricate the latest and greatest ‘best available scientific consensus’ which states that your soil stores insufficient amounts of carbon, and consequently, your lands will be confiscated because you’re ‘a danger to the environment’? Don’t laugh, absurdly broad definitions as the above will absolutely be abused. Just give it time.
‘States should take measures to prevent undesirable impacts on local communities, indigenous peoples and vulnerable groups that may arise from, inter alia, land speculation, land concentration and abuse of customary forms of tenure. States and other parties should recognize that values, such as social, cultural and environmental values, are not always well served by unregulated markets.’‘
And speaking of absurdly broad definitions, get a load of that! How do you even define ‘land speculation’, and how many acres constitutes ‘land concentration’ - and does this change with your occupancy? Does that mean that a retiring farmer by force must sell off his lands immediately upon retirement?
And how do you even perform any level of calculation of ‘social and cultural values’? Oh wait, that would be through utter guesswork aka the ‘Contingent Valuation Model’, correct? The same one used to calculate non-use Ecosystem Service Valuations, correct?
’States should protect the wider interests of societies through appropriate policies and laws on tenure.
Another absurd get-out clause. What constitutes an ‘appropriate policy’? Oh, hang on, it’s time for the second continuously repeated propaganda message -
‘States should establish appropriate and reliable recording systems, such as land registries, that provide accessible information on tenure rights and duties in order to increase tenure security and to reduce the costs and risks of transactions.‘
Yes, remember - database good, no database bad. Baaa!
‘State and non-state actors should adhere to applicable ethical standards.‘
… as set by whom? Wait, it’s time for another message from our sponsor [12.1] -
‘States should ensure that all actions are consistent with their existing obligations under national and international law, and with due regard to voluntary commitments under applicable regional and international instruments.‘
‘Responsible investments should do no harm, safeguard against dispossession of legitimate tenure right holders and environmental damage, and should respect human rights.‘
It’s completely absurd. How do you define what does harm? Oh wait, don’t we already have a legal framework stipulating what’s allowed? An existing framework, which these Marxists are busy undermining as we speak, in an attempt to replace with arbitrary rule through ‘judging each case on its merits’. Onto [12.6] -
‘States should provide safeguards to protect legitimate tenure rights, human rights, livelihoods, food security and the environment from risks that could arise from large-scale transactions in tenure rights. Such safeguards could include introducing ceilings on permissible land transactions and regulating how transfers exceeding a certain scale should be approved‘
And et voila. Now we have ‘limits’ on scale of ownership. See, at no stage are these Marxist swine honest about anything, because if they were, you might just become inconvenient to their scheming.
But there’s another interesting addition - food security. We shall also return to this shortly.
In [12.8] we see how the ‘land speculation’ from above has now become ‘responsible investments’ -
‘…, the conditions that promote responsible investments and then should develop and publicize policies and laws that encourage responsible investments, respect human rights, and promote food security and sustainable use of the environment. Laws should require agreements for investments to clearly define the rights and duties of all parties to the agreement. Agreements for investments should comply with national legal frameworks and investment codes.‘
… and now we even have even more centralised control through ‘investment codes’, dictating what you are allowed to invest in. [12.10] continues -
‘When investments involving large-scale transactions of tenure rights, including acquisitions and partnership agreements, are being considered, States should strive to make provisions for different parties to conduct prior independent assessments on the potential positive and negative impacts that those investments could have on tenure rights, food security and the progressive realization of the right to adequate food, livelihoods and the environment.‘
So now we even have ‘progressive realisation’ added to this already meaningless garbage framework enabling arbitrary rule. And we also spot ‘food security’, that’s count number two. But let me just include [12.12] because that makes it three -
‘Investments should not contribute to food insecurity and environmental degradation.‘
Setting aside the latter - which also is absurdly open to abuse - we’ve now seen food being dragged in for a third time. Of course, this being the UN FAO, it does somewhat make sense, but it does mean I have to address it now.
In 2010, the OHCHR released the document ‘Human Rights - The Right to Adequate Food‘7. And that title does not mean what you - or most - think it does. From page 3 we find -
‘The right to food is NOT the same as a right to be fed. Many assume that the right to food means that Governments have to hand out free food to anyone who needs it. They conclude that this would not be feasible or might cause dependency. This is a misunderstanding. The right to food is not a right to be fed, but primarily the right to feed oneself in dignity. Individuals are expected to meet their own needs, through their own efforts and using their own resources. To be able to do this, a person must live in conditions that allow him or her either to produce food or to buy it. To produce his or her own food, a person needs land, seeds, water and other resources, and to buy it, one needs money and access to the market.‘
Get it? ‘The right to food’ means that you either have a job, and pay for it, or you have a patch of land which through hard labours can provide it for you. In other words, ‘food insecurity’ from the perspective of the landless means land redistribution.
Oh, and by golly - [13.1] outlines much the same -
‘Where appropriate, States may consider land consolidation, exchanges or other voluntary approaches for the readjustment of parcels or holdings to assist owners and users to improve the layout and use of their parcels or holdings, including for the promotion of food security and rural development in a sustainable manner.’
For sakes of food security. ‘The right to food’ leads to land redistribution (but not of Bill Gates’s lands, of course). Sorry, it’s time for a message from our sponsor -
’States should ensure that all actions are consistent with their obligations under national and international law, and with due regard to voluntary commitments under applicable regional and international instruments, and ensure that participants are at least as well off after the schemes compared with before. These approaches should be used to coordinate the preferences of multiple owners and users in a single legitimate readjustment.‘
Multiple owners, huh? Oh you mean like when multiple ecosystem services are exploited from overlapping landscapes?
‘Where appropriate, States may consider the establishment of land banks as a part of land consolidation programmes to acquire and temporarily hold land parcels until they are allocated to beneficiaries‘
What a great idea. Why don’t we call these land banks ‘reserves’ of the ‘biosphere’? As for ‘temporarily‘, I wouldn’t hold me breath. They didn’t let you know about this initiative, now did they? You cannot trust them.
‘Where appropriate, States may consider encouraging and facilitating land consolidation and land banks in environmental protection…‘
Biosphere Reserves, you mean. UNESCO Biosphere Reserves8, specifically.
‘Where fragmentation of smallholder family farms and forests into many parcels increases production costs, States may consider land consolidation and land banks to improve the structure of those farms and forests.‘
Ah right, so land confiscation. Hey, didn’t they try this awesome idea with the Kulaks back in the 1930s? Say, what happened to them, anyway?
In [15.1] we observe another awesome idea -
‘Redistributive reforms can facilitate broad and equitable access to land and inclusive rural development. In this regard, where appropriate under national contexts, States may consider allocation of public land, voluntary and market based mechanisms as well as expropriation of private land, fisheries or forests for a public purpose.‘
So they now promote outright theft. Let’s call it the ‘Integrated Mugabe Approach’9.
‘States may consider land ceilings as a policy option in the context of implementing redistributive reforms‘
Uhuh, and those lands found in excess, well… that’s where our Integrated Mugabe Approach comes into play.
‘Partnerships between the State; communities; civil society; the private sector; organizations of farmers and small-scale food producers, of fishers, and of forest users; and other parties should be developed.’
Stakeholders, you mean. Transition to an Ecosystem Approach Stakeholder Economy, correct? We can use the Integrated Mugabe Approach to help us get there.
‘Where States choose to implement redistributive reforms, they should clearly define the objectives of reform programmes and indicate land exempted from such redistribution. The intended beneficiaries, such as families including those seeking homegardens, women, informal settlement residents, pastoralists, historically disadvantaged groups, marginalized groups, youth, indigenous peoples, gatherers and small-scale food producers, should be clearly defined.‘
So if a neighbour for whatever reason gains, perhaps because the recipient of the lands arrived at through an Integrated Mugabe Approach is an absolutely incompetent farmer, and his bees now all work to pollinate his neighbours crops as opposed to his own - that neighbour should now be penalised?
‘Where States choose to implement redistributive reforms, they should develop policies and laws, through participatory processes, to make them sustainable‘
Yet, in other documents, they outright state that making predictions is impossible because of the quantities of unknowns. The gross levels of arrogance, ignorance, and contemptuous pretense of knowledge on display is… more or less exactly where I’d expect a document produced by the United Nations to be.
Which, sadly, is absolutely true.
Chapter 5 is on ‘Administration of tenure‘, and this is where Jason Voorhees joins Freddy Krueger.
‘This part addresses governance of the administration of tenure of land, fisheries and forests with regard to records of tenure rights, valuation, taxation, regulated spatial planning, resolution of disputes over tenure, and transboundary matters‘
No points for seeing where this is going. But first, a message from our sponsor -
‘States should provide systems (such as registration, cadastre and licensing systems) to record individual and collective tenure rights‘
Which is then immediately extended through [17.2] -
‘States should provide recording systems appropriate for their particular circumstances, including the available human and financial resources... In order to enhance transparency and compatibility with other sources of information for spatial planning and other purposes, each State should strive to develop an integrated framework that includes existing recording systems and other spatial information systems.’
See, now the database also needs further inclusion of spatial detail., and be built upon existing systems, ie, carry across what data already exists in said.
’In each jurisdiction, records of tenure rights of the State and public sector, private sector, and indigenous peoples and other communities with customary tenure systems should be kept within the integrated recording system.‘
Yeah, and no attempts to hide that the system should include information pertaining to every parcel of land, and every ‘indigenous person’. [17.3] then curiously loops in ‘social scientists’ before [17.4] states -
‘… with increased spatial accuracy being provided if required over time. To facilitate the use of records of tenure rights, implementing agencies should link information on the rights, the holders of those rights, and the spatial units related to those rights. Records should be indexed by spatial units as well as by holders to allow competing or overlapping rights to be identified. As part of broader public information sharing, records of tenure rights should be available to State agencies and local governments to improve their services. Information should be shared in accordance with national standards, and include disaggregated data on tenure rights.‘
So now all the data needs to be searchable not just by name, but also spatial units, and the dataset should further comprise which rights are associated with each… well… lease. And finally, the central planners should be able to use the data for monitoring purposes - no, really - because that’s essentially how the Social Determinants of Health operates; through fake claims of ‘disaggregated data’.
[18.1] then follows, with this very, very interesting part -
‘States should ensure that appropriate systems are used for the fair and timely valuation of tenure rights for specific purposes, such as operation of markets, security for loans, transactions in tenure rights as a result of investments, expropriation and taxation. Such systems should promote broader social, economic, environmental and sustainable development objectives‘
Yeah, the lands will be pledged as collateral and ultimately lost, because those ‘indigenous peoples’ were either lied to, pressured, or that greedy or misinformed they unfortunately signed those Microfinance loan dotted lines.
Because the unfortunate thing is this - to receive access to loans, they have to pledge collateral, and generally, the only thing they own is the land on which they live, and on which their ancestors lived for many generations.
And which they’re about to tragically lose.
And I’ll get back to the source of this in a minute, because the above is not an isolated example.
Meanwhile, let’s just hammer home that this indeed is the claimed non-use values outlined by Ecosystem Service Valuation10, or Natural Capital Accounting11.
‘Policies and laws related to valuation should strive to ensure that valuation systems take into account non-market values, such as social, cultural, religious, spiritual and environmental values where applicable.‘
The way they ‘value’ said is through the ‘Contingent Valuation Method’12 which is - and I am absolutely not kidding - asking a focus group what they’d pay for a given ‘service’ - like a stroll in the park. No, really.
We then arrive at Taxation in [19.1] -
‘States have the power to raise revenue through taxation related to tenure rights so as to contribute to the achievement of their broader social, economic and environmental objectives. These objectives may include encouraging investment or preventing undesirable impacts that may arise, such as from speculation and concentration of ownership or other tenure rights. Taxes should encourage socially, economically and environmentally desirable behaviour, such as registering transactions or declaring the full sale value.‘
Which is as exploitable as the day is long. Want to get rid of private property? Raise taxes to infinity. Are you a corrupt politician, and do you hate your neighbour? Declare his ownership undesireable on grounds of… well, I’m sure you can find an equally corrupt ‘scientist’ willing to oblige. If not, here’s where you might find one.
And we then arrive at [20.1] -
‘Regulated spatial planning affects tenure rights by legally constraining their use. States should conduct regulated spatial planning, and monitor and enforce compliance with those plans, including balanced and sustainable territorial development, in a way that promotes the objectives of these Guidelines. In this regard, spatial planning should reconcile and harmonize different objectives of the use of land, fisheries and forests.‘
Ah, ain’t it grand. This opens up the door for One Health, and the Convention on Biological Diversity, demanding that human impact is balanced vs ecosystems.
From [20.3] it follows -
‘States should ensure that regulated spatial planning is conducted in a manner that recognizes the interconnected relationships between land, fisheries and forests and their uses, including the gendered aspects of their uses. States should strive towards reconciling and prioritizing public, community and private interests and accommodate the requirements for various uses, such as rural13, agricultural14, nomadic15, urban16 and environmental17. Spatial planning should consider all tenure rights, including overlapping and periodic rights. Appropriate risk assessments for spatial planning should be required. National, regional and local spatial plans should be coordinated‘
First off, the spatial planning is the ‘Landscape Approach’.
The interconnected nature could be Planetary Health or One Health, much the same in this context, really. Either way, human impact on the planet is too large, and some of us will need to die, or live in squalor. No, not the Rockefeller or Rothschild clans, of course.
Overlapping tenure rights come down to overlapping landscape approach ecosystem services (ie, fresh water and carbon credits both exploited from overlapping geographical ranges), periodic rights I can only imagine is the leasehold duration supplied to the GEF, as part of the creation of blended finance deals.
And if you can’t see where ‘National, regional and local spatial plans should be coordinated‘ is going, then… wait a few minutes. [20.5] carries on -
‘Spatial planning should take duly into account the need to promote diversified sustainable management of land, fisheries and forests, including agro-ecological approaches and sustainable intensification, and to meet the challenges of climate change and food security.‘
It just so predictable. So, so, so predictable. Now, here’s [22.1] -
‘States should cooperate, in the framework of appropriate mechanisms and with the participation of affected parties, in addressing tenure issues related to land, fisheries and forests which traverse national boundaries.‘
Oh wait are you saying (with a message from our sponsor) -
‘Where appropriate, States should harmonize legal standards of tenure governance, in accordance with existing obligations under national and international law, and with due regard to voluntary commitments under applicable regional and international instruments. Where appropriate, this should be coordinated with relevant regional bodies and with affected parties. States, with the participation of the affected parties as appropriate, should develop or strengthen existing international measures to administer tenure rights that cross international boundaries‘
Yes, I am. I told you this wouldn’t stay inside the sovereign nation. The plan is to roll this out globally.
First national, then transboundary, then regional, then global.
Chapter 6 then addresses ‘Climate Change’. I’m sure you can work out its contents, but I personally am done with this utter Marxist trash.
Now, on the context of databases - where do you reckon all of this will end up? Here18, perchance?
And one of their partners is the International Land Coalition19.
And of course, we can address that in reverse20.
… yet another of their initiatives is this one - AR Now!21.
… now feel free to scroll back up and find the ‘AR Now!’ (agricultural reform) picture I added above. Yeah, the one calling for ‘Land as Collateral’. That’ll be where those Debt-for-Nature Swaps intended to collapse enter the frame.
-
I’ll be back with part 3, documenting what happened between 1992 and 2022 later. I’ve frankly read enough manipulative, lying Marxist trash for one day.