The President’s Council on Sustainable Development

Tony Blair’s 1991 article in Marxism Today argued for realigning society around public-private collaboration, aimed at serving the common good. And his Third Way pamphlet then added civil society into this mix, emphasizing a balance between ‘rights and responsibilities’. And this was published around the same time as Kofi Annan’s restructuring of the United Nations, which effectively passed control to ECOSOC registered NGOs with General Consultative Status.

The third key figure leading this ‘Third Way’ drive was Bill Clinton. And that then raises the question - did a similar drive occour in the United States around this period?

And as it happens, answering that question leads to the Ecosystem Approach.

---

Bill Clinton’s Executive Order 12852¹, dated June 29, 1993, establishes the ‘President’s Council on Sustainable Development’. In essence, this council comprises 25 members representing ‘industrial, environmental, governmental, and not-for-profit organizations with experience relating to matters of sustainable development‘. The rest is boilerplate… except from the final part, which revokes George HW Bush’s EO 12737².

And that’s interesting, as the primary difference between the two appears to be Clinton’s inclusion of environmental and NGO organisations.

---

And NGOs - technically CSOs (which comprise NGOs) - participating in the decision making process has been a focal point of mine lately. In brief, Agenda 21 laid out a blueprint for the future of global governance, aiming to bring NGOs into the core of the decision-making process. Trisectoral Network turned this into reality, and Tony Blair’s documents outline a similar progression. And as for Kofi Annan… well, while Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were the elected leaders of, respectively, the United States and United Kingdom, Kofi Annan integrated this approach into the United Nations framework.

Agenda 21

Trisectoral Networks

The Third Way.

Kofi Annan

And let me get a few more links out of the way, because though I find it suspicious when Wikipedia presents an article, narrated to aid the objective of a particular perspective - with ‘Climategate’ being a such example - what’s even more suspicious is when there’s no reference at all. And ‘Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars’ and the ‘ESWI’ serve two such cases.

Climategate

Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars

The ESWI

---

Bill Clinton’s executive order established the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, and this council released 3 reports -

• 1996 - Sustainable America: A New Consensus for Prosperity, Opportunity, and a Healthy Environment for the Future³
  The council's main report, providing a blueprint for sustainable development in the U.S. It outlined principles, goals, and recommendations for achieving sustainability across various sectors, such as energy, land use, and economic policy, whilst calling for the balancing of economic growth with environmental protection and social equity.

• 1997 - Building on Consensus: A Progress Report on Sustainable America⁴
  This follow-up report offered an assessment of the progress made since the initial recommendations in 1996. It reviewed steps taken by the federal government, private sector, and local communities to implement sustainable practices. The report also highlighted ongoing challenges and areas needing further attention.

• 1999 - Towards a Sustainable America: Advancing Prosperity, Opportunity, and a Healthy Environment for the 21st Century⁵
  The council's final report outlined strategies for continuing the work of sustainable development into the new millennium. It provided updated recommendations and focused on long-term sustainability goals, urging the integration of sustainability principles across all levels of government and sectors of society.

And these reports are… fairly conclusive. Starting with ‘Sustainable America’, we have -

‘Our vision is of a life-sustaining earth… change is ineviable and necessary for the sake of future generations… environmental progress will depend on individual, institutional, and corporate responsibility; commitment, and stewardship… we need a new collaborative decision process… strengthen communities… integrated policies…’

If you read my substack post on Agenda 21, I’m sure you realise the alignment. Because Agenda 21 describes the future global governance structure, with NGOs in a lead role.

Agenda 21

The introduction continues -

‘… moving from conflict to collaboration and adopting stewardship and individual responsibility… ‘

Tony Blair describes public-private competition as a conflict which should be redirected toward collaboration for the common good… and the Third Way explicitly outlines ‘rights and responsibilities’.

‘… networks formed by citizens, businesses, and communities seeking a greater voice for their interests. As a result, society outside of government — civil society — is demanding a greater role in governmental decisions, while at the same time impatiently seeking solutions outside government’s power to decide……… Individual citizens have lost faith in their ability to influence events…’

I lived through this period. I don’t recall anyone demanding as much, or even claiming they’d lost faith. And it’s curious that the inclusion of NGOs in the Executive Order appears to have led to this somewhat self-serving outcome.

‘… helped launch a trend in profitable pollution prevention. More Americans now know that pollution is waste, waste is inefficient, and inefficiency is expensive.‘

And we need to regulate alleged pollution, because not doing so will cost you money. This message is crafted specifically for its intended recipient - an American, concerned about finances.

The introduction continues, reminding us of growing wealth disparities, and that tomorrow’s world will include the global population as opposed to just that of the United States. And that’s an issue, as the alleged exhaustion of finite resources, coupled with the alleged destruction of renewable resources work runs counter to a growing population, demanding ever-higher living standards. And the predictably obvious, primary culprit is naturally identified -

‘Human activity, primarily the burning of coal, oil, and gas, releases pollutants that are changing the chemistry of the Earth's atmosphere — changes that may eventually affect the Earth's climate.‘

And this then leads to the ‘Pursuit of Common Goals’, which is exactly where Tony Blair left us with his 1991 cliffhanger. And as for the ‘integrated’ solution -

‘Sustainable development is the framework that integrates economic, environmental, and social goals in discourse and policies that enhance the prospects of human aspirations.‘

This integration is emphasised, along with a call for America to ‘manage its natural resources’, and not destroy its ‘natural capital’. Finally, the need to ‘invest in its children’ which will come through education.

Ultimately, all of this leads towards -

‘… solutions that build common purpose from shared goals…‘

The next section describes the ‘collaborative approach’, which could mean ‘that it is possible to shift from conflict to collaboration when citizens find common values to guide community action‘ before adding -

‘For government, this means using its power to convene and facilitate, shifting gradually from prescribing behavior to supporting responsibility by setting goals, creating incentives, monitoring performance, and providing information.‘

… that the power vested in elected officials should be shifted towards ‘supporting responsibility’, meaning those who further participate in the ‘collaborative’ decision-making process, which beyond ‘people’ also include -

‘The federal government, in particular, can help set boundaries for and facilitate placebased policy dialogues… businesses need to build the practice and skills of dialogue with communities and citizens, participating in community decisionmaking… ‘

Of course… only elected individuals are democratically responsible, but hey, let’s not consider inconveniencies but instead focus on ‘Stewardship as a Guide’, and -

‘The intuitive and essentially moral commitment Americans have to preserving Earth’s beauty and productivity for future generations is best expressed in the concept of stewardship… is a set of values that applies to a variety of decisions. It provides moral standards that cannot be imposed but can be taught, encouraged, and reinforced... can illuminate complex policy choices and guide individuals toward the common good.‘

… which points towards a set of moral values, used to guide individuals in the name of the ‘common good’. And speaking of individuals -

‘Individual Responsibility… our recommendations will be meaningless unless individuals acting as citizens, consumers, investors, managers, workers, and professionals decide that it is important to them to make choices on the basis of a broader, longer view of their self-interest; to get involved in turning those choices into action; and, most importantly, to be held accountable for their actions.‘

There’s that ‘rights versus responsibilities’ inclusion again (The Third Way), only this time it relates to (responsible) environmental stewardship.

‘We foresee a world in which zero waste will become an ideal for society…‘

… which per above means we allegedly won’t waste money, either. Win-win!

The next chapter speaks of reform, and ‘market-based incentives’ are of course headlined -

‘The nation should create a new framework for integrating economic and environmental goals that lets all stakeholders take advantage of these opportunities…‘

… provided all the stakeholders have a Charles Schwab trading account… enabled to trade futures… and the capital allowing said… and -

‘Make Greater Use of Market Forces. Sustainable development objective must harness market forces through policy tools, such as emissions trading…‘

… specifically those related to emissions trading. Yes, the ones which UNCTAD considered around this time as well.

Combating Global Warming

A discussion on ‘extended product responsibility’ follows which - pretty much - is the ‘Circular Economy’ using a different term, as it seeks to describe applying total environmental input costs to every produce… which logically infers that every stage of the pipeline must be surveilled. And this is Leontief’s input-output analysis in environmental context.

Input-Output Analysis

The section on the ‘use of market incentives’ include -

‘Federal and state governments should build on existing programs to design and carry out a system that allows the buying and selling of emissions reductions guaranteeing permanent overall reductions… this approach would reduce the costs of meeting air and water quality standards without compromising human and environmental health.‘

… a specific mention of air and water quality, and -

‘The federal government should work with the private sector and nonprofit groups to identify cost-effective opportunities to reuse and recycle materials…‘

… yet another indirect mention of the ‘Circular Economy’. And the final part of the chapter even extends this to the intergovernmental sphere, before indirectly hinting that the call for ‘devolution’ (or ‘subsidiarity’) is only half the story -

‘Along with the devolution of responsibilities to states and localities, however, some traditional responsibilities must be preserved. For example, the federal government must continue to establish consistent national standards to ensure uniform levels of protection across state lines… transboundary pollution…‘

Subsidiarity

The next chapter relates to information and education, obviously manipulated in a direction useful to the narrative of ‘planetary responsibility’, before looping in the scientific community, and the inclusion of measurable ‘natural goals’, similarly outlined by Tony Blair’s Third Way.

Next follows related update to business accounting practices -

‘Unfortunately, standard business accounting practices bury the lion’s share of environmental costs in non-environmental accounts and fail to trace costs…‘

… leading to the inescapable conclusion -

‘… it must be incorporated into ongoing business practices, including strategic planning, product development, and capital budgeting.‘

… before detailing the fusion of ‘sustainability’ into all spheres of education.

Next chapters details the transfer of political decision-making capability to those ‘communities’ which it curiously seeks to ‘strengthen’ through ‘devolution’ -

‘The role of local communities is becoming increasingly important as the United States, and much of the rest of the world, moves toward more decentralized decisionmaking. The federal government will continue to bear the responsibility for bringing together diverse interests to establish national standards, goals, and priorities... expanding the roles played by states, counties, and local communities in implementing policies and programs to address national goals. This new model of intergovernmental partnership will require information sharing and an unprecedented degree of coordination among levels of government.‘

… reasonably summarised on only the following page through -

‘It is clear that the scope of a problem determines the level at which it is most appropriately solved. For example, some issues have global, regional, and interregional ramifications. Air pollution is one such issue.‘

In other words - as the Ecosystem Approach principle 2 laid out - planetary matters will be ‘decentralised to the lowest appropriate level’, ie, centralised on a global scale.

Global Governance, in other words.

The Ecosystem Approach

But it’s not just a matter of ‘decentralising to the lowest, global level possible’, no, we also speak of the integration of those not elected into the decision-making process -

‘In sustainable communities, partnerships involving business, government, labor, and employees promote economic development and jobs.‘

… cemented through -

‘Lasting solutions are best identified when people from throughout a community as individuals: elected officials; or members of the business community, environmental groups, or civic organizations are brought together in a spirit of cooperation to identify solutions to community problems.‘

… but also not forgetting to include systems theory in the process -

‘Systemic thought is required so that economic, environmental, and social problems are recognized as integrated and actions to address them are coordinated.‘

… before it launches into a description of ‘sustainable communities’, comprising community planning, building codes, zoning ordinances, efficient land use, preserved wetlands, and even mixed-use development.

Oh wait. It feels as though we’ve been here before.

Chapter 5 starts by mentioning ‘An ethic of stewardship‘, before -

‘… collaborative approaches, based on a framework of natural systems or defining land forms such as watersheds, offer useful tools for identifying common visions and goals for advancing stewardship and resolving conflicts.‘

… and in the event it wasn’t entirely obvious where this leads -

‘USING ECOSYSTEM APPROACHES TO NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT‘

The Ecosystem Approach (linked above) describes a method of Integrated Land Management, using a ‘devolved’ decision making-process including ‘stakeholders’. It is nothing short of an instrument, facilitating top-down land management, where each defined geographical range is titled a ‘Landscape’. Consequently, when you hear of the ‘Landscape Approach’, what this details is a specific geographical range, managed top-down by the ‘stakeholders’. Incidentally, the Global Environment Facility just loves facilitating the monetisation of UNESCO Biosphere Reserves through Landscape Approach Blended Finance deals.

The Landscape Approach

The Global Environment Facility

Blended Finance

Next follows this intellectually dishonest phrasing -

‘The shift from managing a single resource or a single species to managing an ecosystem for a variety of resources, including the maintenance of its biodiversity, makes sense. And there are numerous advantages to using the best scientific, social, and economic information and fostering collaboration among landowners and other stakeholders — actions that characterize this new generation of natural resources management.‘

What this actually describes is the landowner losing property rights. No, rather, he’s now a ‘stakeholder’, though obviously not the top-level one who ultimately can override all stakeholders at the lower levels.

It’s the transfer of rights from the individual to the state, as laid out by UN Habitat in 1976, and the Ecosystem Approach quite legitimately is a tool for the use of top-down integrated land management.

The report follows by outlining ‘incentives and disincentives’ -

‘The challenge is to identify new, market-based approaches to promoting stewardship and participatory planning and to eliminate subsidized programs…‘

We’ve seen that the market-based approaches of which they speak relate to emission permit trading system, concurrently launched through UNCTAD, but the subsidies of which they speak… these are not the subsidies you expect. No, what they do is incorporate a hypothetical environmental damage to the environment as a cost - which is completely impossible to calculate - and then impose that as a duty, added to the price of the good. In other words, if fossil fuels are considered polluting, then the environmental clean-up cost is added through fuel duties. The net outcome here is vastly higher energy bills on basis of costs, established through outright guesswork and environmental quack science.

ENviRON

And as for agriculture -

‘Stewardship of prime farmlands is a fundamental component of sustainable agriculture...‘

… this through ‘stewardship’ similarly calls for ‘collaborative approaches’, meaning farmers will not be in charge of their own lands.

The chapter finishes by wrapping forests and fisheries in the same Ecosystem Approach-based top-down landscape management practise, before adding a section on ‘creating partnerships for conservation’ which states -

‘Owners of private property in these semi-natural areas are important participants in preserving biodiversity and creating sustainable economies. Future economic and ecological prosperity will depend to a significant degree on the ability to recognize and support the role that private landowners, in partnership with public and private conservation organizations, can play in promoting natural resources stewardship.‘

… that their land rights have now been at least part transferred to ‘conservation organisations’, operating entirely outside the spheres of political accountability.

Chapter 6 details the ‘stabilisation of population’, using the often discussed measures of ‘reproductive health services’, before outlining the need for immigration reform. Let’s skip this, as it should be fairly obvious where they stand on both issues.

Finally, chapter 7 calls integrated land management on a global scale through the Ecosystem Approach, though not forgetting -

‘The federal government, assisted by nongovernmental organizations and private industry, should maintain scientific research and data collection related to global environmental challenges. Credible, complete, and peer-reviewed research and data are central to guiding U.S. policy and international deliberations.‘

… to include those NGOs and their academic… grantees… to ultimately call for -

‘The federal government should ensure open access for, and participation of, nongovernmental organizations and private industry in international agreements and decisionmaking processes.‘

… NGO participation at international decision-making level. And this, of course, relates to the United Nations in this very same year Clinton got rid of Boutros-Boutros Ghali, to be replaced with Kofi Annan who was… somewhat more open for business.

---

The follow-up report arrived in 1997, and though I see no need to cover in similar depth, I do have a few comments to add. First off, Al Gore provided the foreword…

… and pay attention to the unbelievably detailed contents section, given this follow-up was released only the following year…

… and as for the Ecosystem Approach… oh yes. Oh yes, oh yes indeed.

Incidentally, when speaking of said Ecosystem Approach, what’s commonly spoken of is the definition set out by the Convention on Biological Diversity (where the CBD was pushed through, especially helped by Al Gore). But the CBD definition was only finalised in the year 2000. But the first outline of the Ecosystem Approach was drafted in 1995 by a task force, instigated by none other but… Al Gore.

Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force

---

The third and final report was released in 1999. And as the CBD term ‘Ecosystem Approach’ was about to go public, this meant that they had to change their terminology, though -

‘At the broad resource management level, systems thinking means employing approaches that consider the entire ecosystem...‘

… doesn’t really leave much doubt. And neither does the inclusion of -

‘At the facility level, systems thinking means treating a facility as a holistic entity, or a closed loop. Integrated and holistic systems also address the entire life cycle of materials and energy. Together, these concepts suggest that manufacturing be treated not as a linear activity, but as circular... in a closed loop, sustainable system... to establish pollution prevention and product stewardship as standard business practices.‘

… as this is as close to a definition of the ‘Circular Economy’ that you will ever come. And beyond -

‘Ecosystem functions and natural resources have value.‘

… obviously more than hint at ‘ecosystem services’ from that ‘natural capital‘ mentioned in the first report.

Predicting the unpredictable

---

It all fits, hand in glove. All of it. The ‘Ecosystem Approach’ is an integrated land management strategy, enabling ‘Landscape Approach’ management of ‘Natural Capital’ from which you derive ‘Ecosystem Services’ like ‘Tradeable Emission Permits’, which you then stick in a holding company of type ‘Natural Asset Company‘ and float on a stock exchange.

Tradeable Emission Permits

The Natural Asset Company

And that ‘Natural Capital’ can commonly be located on land in ‘Debt-for-Nature Swap’ deals, pledged as ‘Collateral’ to the ‘UNESCO Biosphere Reserves’, monetised through ‘Blended Finance‘ deals involving the ‘Global Environment Facility’. And incidentally, the GEF was the first UN Agency operating through a ‘Stakeholder Selection Process’ - though, in fairness, those principles were first implemented via UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere programme, first suggested at the ‘1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference’.

Debt-for-Nature Swaps

Collateral

Monetising UNESCO Biosphere Reserves

Blended Finance

The Stakeholder Selection Process

The 1968 Launch Event

---

By God this has been a long process of discovery. But we’re close. So, so, so close. And two family names in particular appear rather a lot. One acted the primary facilitators of the ‘Conservation Foundation’, who penned a large quantity of material on zoning in the 1970s, clearly to be used as input for the report above. And investigating that fact alone… was quite the process of ‘Discovery’ in itself.

And as for the other name… well, both the UNFCCC and CBD gravitate towards an organisation repeatedly referred to in this article. And all those roads lead to a different, yet similarly recognisable name.

The Conservation Foundation

Discovery

A UNFCCC/CBD synthesis.

---

But though I could here remind you of your ‘Planetary Ethic of responsible stewardship of the environment’, and thus the ‘Earth Charter’ which followed in 2000, let’s instead go back to 1988 and the conference ‘The changing atmosphere : Implications for global security‘⁶, from which we learn -

‘Adequate attention should be given to an integrated program for the provision of information to the media and to non-governmental organizations, which can play an important role in the education of a wide audience, and in the creation of an informed public in all countries that can influence national and international policies.‘

Because as ‘the opera ain’t over until the fat lady sings‘, it’s probably best to ensure that this particular fat lady doesn’t lead an ECOSOC registered General Consultative Status NGO.

1. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/WCPD-1993-07-05/pdf/WCPD-1993-07-05-Pg1201.pdf

2. https://www.elr.info/administrative/executive-orders/presidents-commission-environmental-quality

3. https://clintonwhitehouse3.archives.gov/PCSD/Publications/TF_Reports/amer-top.html

4. https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov/PCSD/Publications/Progress_Report.html

5. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/7088

6. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/106359?ln=en&v=pdf