The World Conservation Bank
1977 saw the inaugural World Wilderness Conference1 take place in Johannesburg, South Africa. An interesting choice of location, really, given this being a year of political turmoil, not helped by contemporary partner of former World Bank Director and Club of Rome president, Mamphela Ramphele, was beaten to death by state security.
Steve Biko2.
And yes - that really was Mamphela’s former partner - with whom, she had two children… back in the days, where they together both were apartheid activists. And yes - she really was the Club of Rome president up until very recently. Of course, the Club of Rome3 site now describes her as a ‘change agent’, which given that CoR role appears a tad… worrying, really.
But this story isn’t about Mamphela. Or even Biko. In fact, the individual probably closest associated with this particular story is Michael Sweatman. But trouble is - he appears really rather camera shy, given that he’s… pretty hard to track down on an individual level. He did however significantly contribute to the 1987 World Wilderness Congress4, previously covered over here -
In fact, first he’s dragged in by William Burley of the World Resource Institute. Of course, the WRI was setup by James Gustave Speth, who’s frankly as implicated as can be, but let’s set that aside for the time being. Burley challenges the notion that creating (UNESCO Biosphere) reserves are enough. No, those who are in charge of ‘making the real land-use decisions’ are not doing quite enough, besides, all of this needs ramping up on a global scale, and somehow conservation needs linking up with development. Further, he doesn’t actually see a need for land acquisition, because land leases should suffice (which form a part of those Landscape Approach blended finance deals created by the Global Environment Facility).
But a core issue is that the North doesn’t really understand the development problems of the Third World. Actually, that’s not his comment - that’s where the ‘banker Michael Sweatman’ comes in. But some bright sparks exist, of which one is the Tropical Forestry Action Plan, born out of the Global Possible Conference in Washington in… 1984. Which is the same year Thomas Lovejoy suggested debt-for-nature swaps as a solution for… well, something. Depends on the angle you look at it.
Regardless, Global Action Plans demands… well, lots of taxpayer cash. Further, the WRI employee is unhappy that NGOs haven’t had a significantly large role in the process this far.
The second part of conference proceedings contain Michael Sweatman’s contribution, titled ‘International Conservation Finance Programme’5. The most interesting part of the paper is the below -
‘In 1984 the concept of a World Conservation Bank was developed by the IWLF. Consultations and meetings were held with non-governmental organizations and the private and public sectors, including many of the advisors to the 4th World Wilderness Congress. An initial concept paper, "The World Conservation Bank," was presented to the World Commission on Environment and Develop ment (WCED) at its Ottawa hearings in May 1986. As a result of this submission and the rising tide of evidence concerning the impact on the environment from the activities of multilateral development banks and other agencies, in its final report, Our Common Future, the Commission urged that "serious consideration be given to the development of a special international banking programme or facility," with the objective of sharply increasing "investments in conservation projects and national conservation strategies that enhance the resource base for development," which could "provide loans and facilitate joint financing arrange ments for the development and protection of critical habitats and ecosystems, including those of international significance, supplementing efforts of bi-lateral aid agencies, multilateral financial institutions and commercial banks."‘
It further outlines a 15 month process for evaluation, which is a reasonable fit as the initiative kicked off in 1989 as we shall see later. But before, he plays the corporate 3-of-4 trick, where you essentially present 3 unacceptable solutions, thereby ensuring you get buy-in for the one suggestion you have an interest in.
Finally, it’s revealed that a number of the participants at the conference also contributed to this early work - apparently kicking off in 1984 - and that Sweatman now will become a WRI ‘visiting fellow’ - ensuring the release of a report with the ‘correct’ conclusions, no doubt - which also means that Burley’s paper is somewhat… conflicted, really. Oh, did I mention that the WRI is connected to Rockefeller?
Next, let’s check out what’s in that 1986 paper, titled ‘THE WORLD CONSERVATION BANK‘6. It’s… fairly thorough, covering the roles of the US Government, multilateral development banks, commercial banks, the private sector and so forth. Even includes the educational arm of the constuct; the World Conservation Service.
It kicks off with the usual predictions of apocalypse, thus we need a solution, and a brand new one at that - working off an existing institution won’t do - and this paper presents one; a World Conservation Bank.
Worldwatch Institute director Lester Brown’s requirements7 of conserving soils, restoring forests and woodlands and so forth ultimately culminates with a requirement of an agenda for international assistance. All this requires a strategy for global conservation, with an aim to achieve sustainable development.
This then leads to the requirement of national conservation strategies, calling for environmental governmental departments, the support of related scientific research, the development of economic ventures (like tourism), and ultimately, the management of environmentally important habitats to conserve boplogical diversity - though this could take place through enther purchasing the lands, or even long-term leases thereof.
The amount of capital required for this purpose is set to one billion dollars, which through leverage should reach the best part of $5bn, though if including related swap agreements, it could be much more - potentially even rivalling the World Bank in size. The World Resources Institute previously called for $5bn over 5 years only recently, and the US desertificatin program of 1977 called for $4.5bn on an annual basis. So, you know - it’s cheap!
And all of this would be a partnership of the public and private sectors, where the WCB would work closely with multiltateral development banks, though remain independent, allowing them to focus on their green credentials. It would stay apolitical, but don’t get your hopes up in terms of profitability, where instead deficits would need to be topped up by subscribing governments, and to get private to sign up, tax breaks are called for. All in all, this would create the fundament of a powerful environmental organisation lobbying for funds allocated for sakes of third world conservation projects.
Next section is the important one, because it outlines debt swaps, a present focus.
On that topic, the WCB is brought in as the intermediary between indebted nations and banks, where a private or multilateral bank transfers underperforming third-world debt in exchange for a ‘long-term instrument’ from the WCB. This will then be used in exchange of a new bond, to be swapped with said indebted nation, in exchage for ownership or a long-term lease for a natural asset. See where this is going?
This needs to include a commercial incentive, or the private enterprise won’t get on-board due to associated cost. Truth is that these bonds are neigh-on worthless, so receiving anything over the 15-20 cents on the dollar they regularly trade for is a bonus. But the proposal goes gurther, suggesting even tax credits for losses incurred, which essentially is nothing short of a secondary bailout in this regard. Naturally, the scheme is considered complex, and thus, one-on-one discussions with the banks (and nations) are required - which further is of convenience, as that way all paperwork can be justified proprietary, and thus never been seen by any of the taxpayers.
An alternative suggested would be to convert said troubled bonds to their local currencies, meaning said bankrupt governments could then inflate those debts away - with the soon-to-be-devalued interests paid to be reserved for conservation.
It then highlight the need for cooperation with multilateral development banks, especially the World Bank, but also drags in the commercial banks and even the private sector, who - though they possess not much in terms of funds - ‘can influence the funds’, which of course goes both ways, because said influence might well be for the benefit of said private interests.
Finally, OECD’s role along with quotes from David Rockefeller referring to the end-is-neigh logic and Tom Lovejoy’s 1984 New York Times article which launched the debt-for-nature swaps are referenced.
Also of significance is the consideration of this being an opportunity, because at the time (1985), $400bn of underperforming debt is owed to the commercial banks, who cannot swallow 80% losses of that portfolio. It would, in short, sink the entire banking sector, meaning that the opportunity here is a covert bailout using taxpayer funds. We then move onto national conservation strategies, linking conservation with development, in order to get the best use out of limited resourced, assigning responsibility for action, and generate better awareness. Further, UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere programme is looped in, which is where we find those Biosphere Reserves they later monetised, of course.
The US Government is needed because - let’s face it - funding… oh yeah, and political clout. Definitely that second thing. And the funding. Very important that one. And in that regard, the Reagan administration has recently made moves in ‘the right direction’ per a World Resource Institute report, which definitely isn’t self-serving in any way. Oh, did I mention the WRI being strongly linked to Rockefeller?
Multilaterals are required as they… serve as an opaque middleman in this bailout strategy with a secondary effort at biodiversity conservation. But all of this work definitely can’t be performed by the most important of the multilaterals - the World Bank - as the running of the WB is centered around not instantly going bankrupt, and this not continuously requiring further funding rounds. Imagine that - a bank being run as a bank! The horror!
But the paper continues - ‘there clearly is a need for a major revision of economic theory, at least as it applies to sustainable development‘… which, I guess, it a pretty good outline of one of my primary issues in this regard. It does however - very, very interestingly continue -
‘The model will be flawed until the natural resource base and services of the ecosystem are included in the calculations of costs and benefit — to produce an environmental rate of return‘
All of this language leans heavily up against that of ‘ecosystem services’, and the valuation thereof, and that is no coincidence, of course.
The role of the commercial banks is then outlined, and it is revealed that those are ‘owed well in excess of $500 billion by the lesser-developed countries’. Primary capital for the entire US banking system at this time was somewhere in the region of $150bn, meaning that even a 30% loss on this bonds would lead to a total system failure. In other words, they really, really did need a major bailout.
The private sector inclusion is then outlined, and this drags in the NGOs (ie, the IUCN and WRI), private banks (Rothschild & Co) and so forth, which - and I quote -
‘… would exercise substantial influence on the board of directors‘.
Which, needless to say, should set of an alarm bell. The World Conservation Services is then briefly outlined, but they’re… not really terribly important, given they practically were allocated the least amount of space in this document. Finally, implementation is discussed, and the need for a ‘mini conference’, which I’m sure should delight those private interests ‘with substantial influence’. And in terms of conferences, the 4th World Wilderness Congress is highlighted, on the agenda of which the World Conservation Bank and Service are both expected.
And finally, the main objective of the World Conservation Bank is summed up, including the channeling of funds from the developed world to… er, middle-men, who may send some of these flows to the intended recipients. And the IUCN, of course, would be a close partner in this venture.
As for the shareholders, 8 types are envisaged, of which each type should financially contribute in unequal amounts, which I’m sure will greatly benefit classes ‘D-H’ especially, ie the private international banks, multinational corporations, NGOs, private foundations, and private citizens. Class ‘A’ rely on taxpayer funding, as does ‘B’ and ‘C’, so they would be required to stump of the lions share, I’m sure.
The bank would require three funding rounds and though an economic return is possible on some activities, the expectation is that this will be a financial disaster, to be bailed out by the shareholders in… well, let’s face it - perpetuity.
And these contributions would finance land management, in short, for sakes of conservation, plus the - of primary importance - ‘incentives to private sector’. And they, too, should be compensated through government schemes such as tax breaks.
I already mentioned it in a prior article, but the bank does exist today. It’s called the ‘Global Environment Facility’, and the early initiative kicked off in 1989.
The World Bank convenient produced a 2-volume document, titled ‘The World Bank Group’s Partnership with the Global Environment Facility‘89, and the appendix in volume 2 makes this pretty clear -
'Negotiations for both the Pilot Phase in 1991 and the restructuring in 1994 were complex… the idea of a World Conservation Bank was floated from the mid-1980s onwards and was the subject of a flurry of proposals in the years after the landmark Brundtland Report included this idea in 1987. In 1989, the French Finance Minister to the Development Committee of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund put forward a proposal, solidly backed up by some $100 million, which eventually led to the establishment of the GEF in its Pilot Phase'
And should there further doubt, here’s courtesy of the WILD Foundation’s very own webpage10. And who are they? Well, it’s basically the International Wilderness Leadership Foundation of which Michael Sweatman was a director11. The very same Michael Sweatman who penned the primary document, and delivered that speech at the World Wilderness Congress outlined above.
And as for the congress, the proceedings from their sixth meet outline Edmund de Rothschild at the very first congress in 1977 speaking about ‘incorporating economics and banking as major issues on the conservation agenda’. It goes even further, stating that ‘the presence and presentatio of Edmund de Rothschild, the banker, played a major role’, only to continue -
‘Through Michael Sweatman, Edmund de Rothschild, and others, the 1987 WWC proposed the establishment of a World Conservation Bank, which eventually led to the $1.1bn US dollar Global Environment Fund of the World Bank‘
The Fund referred to is the GEF Trust Fund, and during the early years, the GEF was housed at the World Bank.
The GEF itself confirms the story12, though I won’t cover in detail here.
I suppose the hosting part could do with a reference13.
There’s also a paper titled ‘THE NETWORK STRUCTURE OF THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY‘14, providing further clarity.
And then there’s a tribute to John Hendee, who founded the WILD Foundation15.
But let’s head back to 1977 and that paper delivered by Edmund de Rothschild. It’s titled ‘Raising the Standard of Living by Means of Large Technical Developments Without Endangering the Flora and Fauna’16. And, you know, whenever these big names deliver a speech you can be certain that it’s gone through focus group iterations at least some 200 times, and consequently, it’ll be exceedingly boring. And this one is certainly no exception.
It kicks off with the usual predictions of doom, of… destruction caused by cities, deforestation, industrialisation, the pollution of rivers, driven by technology, and man’s desire for progress - thus disregarding the environment callously. This should be solved throuh education and awareness, starting from an early age, because all of this has led to a world with ‘the bones of animals and birds annihilated, flora recklessly desecrated, the beauty of nature despoiled and polluted’. This then continues through man outlined as ‘the greatest squanderers of the earth’s resources’, which must be put right through ‘preservation of what’s left’.
And as I sit here reading this yet again, I can’t shake the feeling I had when I read it the first time. The central theme, in short, was accurately captured by the January, 1969 isse of the UNESCO Courier which led me on the trail to the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference. And that Courier release outlined the need for ‘Planetary Management’, in short. It also dragged in the as-yet undefined ‘Ecosystem Approach’.
He namedrops Winston Churchill, and outlines three examples of how development can consider the environment, and use these the highlight that ‘it is indeed possible to transform the landscape significantly to the benefit of mankind without at the same time having to despoil the environment’, where the mention of ‘landscape’ immediately makes me think of the associated ‘approach’, which of course is touted by the Ariane de Rothschild-connected Global Landscapes Forum.
Regardless, he finishes off with a… somewhat peculiar Nietzsche quote -
‘Inescapable, hesitatingly, terrible like far, the great task approaches: how should the earth as a whole be administered? To what end should man, no longer a people or a race, be raised and bred?‘
I somewhat get the feeling that Rothschild already has worked out an answer to that question on our behalf - without even bothering to consult us. And - coincidentally - it transpires that Edmund de Rothschild also contributed when the Wilderness Leadership Foundation was established in the United Kingdom, supposedly in 1976. And the entire initiative started with an idea conceived in 1957.
What also took place in 1957 was an early experiment, ultimately leading to a certain ‘scientific consensus’. You can rack that up as another ‘coincidence’, I guess.
Ultimately - the World Conservation Bank came to pass in the form of the Global Environment Facility. Consider that firmly documented - though should you wish to dive even deeper, the World Bank declassified an internal document on the matter just a few years back17.
I’ll leave that for others to explore. Because all this sleuthing will eventually come to nothing if we don’t progress, and there are still steps left to document. For the time being, however, I suggest continuing over here as this documents what the GEF are currently up to. In addition to ‘sustainable nature conservation’ that is.
And my final note here relates to the George Hunt clip. Around the 13 minute mark he talks about solvency issues relating to this conservation bank, to which Sweatman replies ‘we’re working on that’. And in terms of the contemporary, contextual timeline, that entirely makes sense. Because they, on a parallel track, were working on the monetisation of those ecosystem services hinted at by Sweatman’s primary document above, one ‘service’ of which is of significant relevance today.
… and yes, that would be carbon credits - outlined here through Tietenberg’s 1985 book on ‘Emissions Trading’.
… though, in fairness, even that sticks deeper.
