Thomas Lovejoy
Debt-for-nature swaps were first proposed in an opinion piece in the New York Times back in 1984, penned by Thomas Lovejoy1, of the WWF.
I… try to hold my hand up when I’m wrong. I completely misinterpreted his importance, because while focusing on his early career - at a time, where the biosphere concept was progressively rolled out - his impact came later on.
And this link just paved the road straight to Rothschild.
This is a continuation of yesterday’s article on Debt-for-Nature Swaps -
From the New York Times article -
‘The international debt crisis should remind us of the ecological as well as the the economic links between rich and poor. For among the hidden casualties of that crisis are the fragile natural environments of the developing countries.
As debtor nations cut back on government spending, programs for protecting natural resources are among the first to go‘
So governments short of funds try to shore up first-line support of their citizens as opposed to biodiversity conservation? Nooo, surely you jest.
‘What is at stake here is more than the preservation of exotic species for the amusement of tourists.’
… which appears a tad amusing, given that this was penned by a representative of an organisation capitalising on the image of a cute panda.
’Proper management of tropical landscapes is critical to the survival of the variety of life on earth and its potential for human welfare.’
Pretty obvious that this ultimately is about the management of those ‘landscapes’ - which again is of interest as we see identical terminology reappear later on through that ‘Landscape Approach’.
’But why not use the debt crisis - which seems to be nearing financial gridlock - to help solve environmental problems?’
Sooo…. why was it gridlocked? Were debt levels majorly outside of historic norms? Or was this an engineered crisis, perchance?
’For instance, debtor nations willing to protect natural resources could be made eligible for discounts or credits against their debts. Arrangements of this sort are not without precedent in our relations with emerging nations, but in this case private creditor banks should receive appropriate tax considerations in order to protect their profitability.’
… which - essentially - is exactly what happened.
… and it’s at this stage I realise stumbled upon a highly relevant article courtesy of the Chicago Tribune a few months back. Dated September, 1987, and titled ‘Banks Strike a Deal With Conservationists‘2, though I didn’t quite grasp the full picture back then -
The article outlines a 1987 conference, the ‘Fourth World Wilderness Congress’, at which the debt-for-nature swap was given its first proper outing. And what a conference, per article, because not only did it feature Gro Harlem Brundtland who had only just released her (in)famous report, but other luminaries present include Maurice Strong, David Rockefeller, and… Edmund de Rothschild.
The Sierra Club had prepared a ‘World Wilderness Inventory’, using Pentagon satellite photos to - allegedly - establish rather how quickly the Earth’s greenery was being ravished… and never mind NASA reporting the opposite years later3.
The Conservation International deal with Bolivia was the showcase, but the key objective was to establish a ‘World Conservation Bank’ for this purpose, and… say, that wouldn’t happen to be where the Global Environment Facility enters the stage?
I’ll do something different here. I usually try to link the highest quality source that I can, but instead, I’ve found this bit of conspiracy theory4 which… essentially more or less agrees with exactly what I’ve documented over the past 9 months.
‘At the 4th World Wilderness Congress in 1987, Edmund de Rothschild’s made the statement, "CO2 is the cause of the world's problems global warming and that combating it needs money (our money). He then along with many others founded the World Conservation Bank.
In 1991 its name was changed to The Global Environment Facility (GEF). The purpose of the Facility is to lend money to the poorest countries, 'money' printed by the IMF out of thin air and guaranteed by our governments.
The Facility seeks wilderness areas rich in minerals as security. The idea is that GEF money then flows back to reimburse our governments for loans. I.e., we give away our tax money. For what? When a country cannot repay loans to the GEF it must give up a piece of its territory to the Rothschild banks (GEF, IMF, World Bank). The total amount of land involved can be as much as 34% of the Earth's surface.
If land cannot be offered as collateral, the country must starve (Haiti, Argentina and others). Rothschild's stroke of genius was that he had his GEF smuggled into the UN system at the Rio UN Summit in 1992 by his friend, Maurice Strong.‘
… see, under normal circumstances, I would ignore said conspiracy theory, but it just so happens that I did outline the potential transfer of ownership in regards to those obviously corrupted blended finance deals, in the event of bankruptcy -
… and I did outline exactly how the scam works when previously covering the Global Environment Facility -
… I also did write on the climate scam and the biodiversity conservation, and that of course both the UNFCCC and the CBD passed in 1992, which also is when the GEF launched (officially, the GEF launched in a pilot stage slightly earlier) -
… so there sure are a lot of concidences going on here already. Helpfully, the conspiracy theory article points us to the next article5, which surely also counts as conspiracy theory. And this article adds a bit more information on the topic courtesy of one George Hunt, who adds Michael Sweatman to the picture.
‘The World Conservation Bank was created in 1987 at the 4th World Wilderness Congress. The bank is a creation of Baron Edmund de Rothschild (now dead) to transfer the debt of third world countries to this bank in exchange for their land. This will create a world bank controlled by the House of Rothschild"‘
Nurse! He’s off his meds again.
‘Hunt goes on to say that World Bank loans, as they stand now, are not collateralized. They're saying, we want collateral, so when we loan-swap this debt, we're going to own the Amazon if you default. They're going to make their bad loans good by collateralizing them after the fact with all of this land and somebody is going to end up with title to twelve and half billion acres. They have multi-trillions of dollars upon which they can create currencies and loans and they're going to begin to barter and counter-trade and loan-swap against the United States. The World Conservation Bank is a scheme to monetize land. This will function as a world central bank and out of that bank there will grow a one-world fiat currency. "‘
My reading of the situation was that it was private equity who’d end up with the deeds, but the Global Environment Facility? Impossible to say for sure without access to those project+finance agreements. I’m pretty damn certain the Western taxpayer will end up holding the bag, however. Oh yeah, and those nations choosing to ‘conserve’ their prime forests, of course.
And there’s a video of George Hunt on YouTube, but let’s go elsewhere with this.
One of the links coming up when searching for this ‘World Conservation Bank’ is one, courtesy of the Harvard Archives6, and I quote - ‘The world conservation bank: a project of the international wilderness leadership foundation‘.
… and ‘The International Wilderness Leadership Foundation’ today trades by the name of the WILD Foundation7.
… and the WILD Foundation… just confirmed that the ‘World Conservation Bank’ indeed was renamed the ‘Global Environment Facility’8.
And these days, the acting President of the WILD Foundation is… Vance Martin9., per the Global Landscapes Forum who also on their page listed as a speaker features… Ariane de Rothschild10. And look - they drag in Moringa, a fund which I previously covered writing on blended finance.
… I won’t add blended finance again11, but here’s my article on the Landscape Approach.
… and in the event you didn’t already guess - that’s of importance because the website is titled the ‘Global Landscapes Forum’12. And though strangely now removed, here’s a Wayback link, should there be any confusion.
Now, let’s zip back to the land of conspiracy theory, because I also discovered this 1991 article over on LaRouche’s ‘Executive Intelligence Review’13., which on page 13 includes an article on ‘'Debt-for-nature' swaps: usury disguised as ecology‘. And again - I only include this, because I essentially came to pretty much exactly the same conclusions independently.
‘But Feldmann is not just your local environmental activist. He is intimately tied to the leading Anglo-American environmentalist groups , such as World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Amnesty International, Conservation International, World Resources Institute , Smithsonian Institution, and Friends of the Earth, whose boards of directors are all interlinked…. But the interests he represents are working in other Ibero-American and developing nations to use the debt-for-nature hoax as a vehicle for taking control of enormous tracts of land and natural resources , limiting national sovereignty, and demanding the destruction of institutions , such as the armed forces , which might oppose these policies . No government should be fooled by talk of "debt reduction" or "environmental protection." As the information below documents , these organizations have only one goal in mind: maintaining usury to prop up the Anglo-American banking system, and destroying whatever nationalist resistance gets in their way‘
Nurse! Meds!
‘According to Feldmann, his first contact with the ecology movement occurred in 1975, around discussions of Club of Rome theories. From that moment onward, he says, he became a fervent malthusian environmentalist, …‘
To be quite honest, there’s so much to comment on here, but my time is limited. I advice you to read the article yourself. A few select quotes, however -
‘The banks' "ecological" interests lie in the fact that, if debt-for-nature exchanges were to be implemented on a large scale, it would permit the swapping of devalued and unpayable debt holdings-"rotted paper," as they are known in Brazil-for set-aside, "preserved" territory rich in natural resources.’
Ie, those worthless bonds which would be defaulted on down the line? Yeah, when those nations eventually do default - and they will, because that’s the intent - the land ownership rights will be transferred.
’Although the oligarchical financial interests would not-at least, initially-have direct access to such resources, the "preserved" land would nonetheless practically serve as a guarantee for bank stock- and title-holders. Thus, WRI president Gus Speth advocates the creation of a World Conservation Bank (WCB) as a kind of centralized compensatory agency for all debt-for-nature transactions.‘
This, however, is interesting given a more contemporary context. Because none of the ‘Ecosystem Service’ nonsense had been developed at this stage. In fact, in 1990, the ‘Contengent Valuation Model’ - which is ludicrous nonsense - was in fact called out for being… ludicrous nonsense14. Regardless, the CVM now serve as a primary valuation method, cooking up absurdly fraudulent valuations.
So what this tells me is that no-one really understood the ultimate purpose at this stage in time.
… and those ‘Ecosystem Services’ leases using a ‘Landscape Approach’ will then be placed into a holding company of type ‘Natural Asset Company’…
Back to the EIR article -
‘The Financial Times of Sept. 19, 1987 also reported on the Denver ecology summit: "One of the major objectives of the Congress was the creation of a program and a World Conservation Bank, presented by Michael Sweatman , executive committee member of the Congress . The international banking program would establish large conservation projects in developing countries where the environment is threatened. Mr. Sweatman's program is intended to help the developing countries to obtain financing to establish national conservation strategies and to facilitate massive Third World debt swaps for conservation projects in those countries."‘
This really is one hell of a good conspiracy theory, no?
‘One month after the Denver meeting ended, US Senator John Chaffee (R-R.I.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, introduced bill S. 1781 (corresponding to HR 3466 in the House), which granted a tax deduction to banks which would "donate" Third World debt to a conservationist group‘
One month! One! Simply extraordinary timing!
The next document comes courtesy of USAID, and isn’t dated… but given that it’s referenced by documents released in 198815… it must be from that same year. Titled ‘A Brief Summary of DEBT-FOR-NATURE Swaps‘16… well, there are a few things of interest here, but not the primary content, which really is more of the same.
First off, it was prepared by representatives of Conservation International, the Nature Conservancy, the International Institute of Environment and Development (hey, that’s Barbara ‘Spaceship Earth’ Ward’s institute), and the World Resources Institute. In fact, said WRI rep happens to be Michael Sweatman repeatedly referred to in above documents.
And three cases are outlined - there’s the Bolivian showcase, and then there are… two prime examples of why no-one should seriously entertain debt-for-nature waps.
Because the Costa Rican bonds come with an attached 25% interest rate, and the Ecuadorian… with a variable interest rate, at the time sitting at 33%.
In other words, these bonds are absolutely worthless… and they will almost certainly be required to refinance just a few years own the road again… but then again… fantastic, if secured against those deeds. Just not for the nation in question, of course.
There’s also another document from 1988, courtesy of the World Bank. It’s titled ‘Debt for Nature Swaps: Overview and Discussion of Key Issues‘17, which I can only assume was written by someone who hadn’t yet received the note -
‘Debt-nature swaps involve the purchase of developing country debt at a discounted value in the secondary debt market, and cancelling the debt in return for environment-related action on part of the debtor nation.‘
That much we know, and -
‘The present debt situation of many LDCs possessing tropical forests is seen as an opportunity to trade off bad debt against habitat preservation.‘
… now I really want to find out exactly what happened in the bond markets.
‘So long as the amounts at stake are marginal and perceived as additional by the debtor government tying arrangements such as debt-nature swaps may prove beneficial because the opportunity costs of the freed funds is very low. Once such swaps take on a larger scale, however, additionality may no longer be that obvious to the debtor government. As a result such debt swaps cannot realistically be counted on to turn the tide‘
And boom. Narrative fail. Taken apart by the World Bank, of all.
‘While the World Bank should be enthusiastic and creative in encouraging soft loans for improved resource management and assist in determining the most efficient environmental preservation program options, debt-nature swaps involving World Bank loans cannot be part of the menu of options.'
In fact, they don’t want to touch them with a 50 ft bargepole.
The overview carries on -
‘It is being gradually accepted that sound management of natural resources is essential for sustainable economic development and political stability… Parallel to this over the past few years, developing countries have faced drastically increasing debt burdens due to dramatic increases in real interest rates, deteriorating terms of trade and poor returns on the money borrowed, and debt servicing has become critically difficult for many LDCs‘
So far, sounds a little bit like an advertisement, but as for the next part…
‘However, other NGOs simply note the fact that a high proportion of the world's remaining tropical forests resides in some of the world's most indebted countries. While they find that the prospects for DEBT-NATURE swapping are promising and could represent a unique opportunity to support conservation in indebted countries, they do not see it as a solution to the debt and environmental crises.‘
I bet those NGOs never did receive more Christmas cards courtesy of the Global Environment Facility after the release of this report.
‘The enthusiasm and optimism surrounding the potential of DEBTNATURE swaps for solving both the environmental and debt problems -- albeit at an admittedly modest scale (Bolivia's foreign debt totals UDS4 billion) -- requires some sober analysis of the real underlying forces at play and the dynamics of the processes at work. Economic analysis can perhaps provide some insight into this complex matter, and a simplified model is developed in the following section to point out some of the unavoidable realities that are not easily removed by means of financial swaps.‘
Leaving no doubt, they might as well have unequivocally stated that ‘this will never work’… though this on an expectation that it’s supposed to in the first place.
And there are a number of other documents which I could similarly draw in, but won’t. I’m still yet to get to the main material. The IUCN, for instance, in 1988 released ‘ECONOMICS AND BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY: Developing and Using Economic Incentives to Conserve Biological Resources‘18. Which also is heavy on debt swaps - though using somewhat more enthusiatic language than the World Bank.
Yet another release from 1988, was this article titled ‘Trading Debt for Nature Instead of Nature for Debt‘19, and it was penned by none other than… the Club of Rome’s very own Donella Meadows20. And it essentially outlines exactly the same again, however adds a few points of interest;
‘The World Wildlife Fund says that at the present rate of loss the tropical forests may be gone in thirty years and with them at least 40 percent of earth’s species of life.‘
Of course, that didn’t materialise though they’re currently busy lying about it.
‘Third World governments willing to exchange debt for nature are not only ecological good guys, they are getting a good deal‘
Really? Well, that reminds me - Maurice Strong… he was a member of the Club of Rome as well, no21?
And to finish off, a copyright notice is added; ‘Sustainability Institute, 1988‘. It’s there, above the links to the ‘Systems Thinking Resources’, the ‘Global Citizens Blog’, the ‘Climate Change Mitigation Tool’, and the ‘Academy for Systems Change’.
… and yes. Spaceship Earth is never far away.
And there are a few final papers I wish to add, just because they all include… small bits of information here and there. Which, to me, suggests that the organisation wasn’t top down driven at this stage. The central narrative doesn’t hold.
Here’s another World Bank paper. This one is from 1990 and titled ‘Debt-for-Nature Swaps'22. As said, it’s those little bits of information, here and there.
‘Although the total amount of debt-for-nature swaps has been limited--$79 million in face value versus $1.3 billion of external debt--the agreements have generated a lot of publicity because of the linkage of external debt reduction with environmental protection in developing countries. While debt-for-nature agreements will never substantially reduce developing-country external debt, they can dramatically increase the amount of funds spent by the debtor country on environmental protection.‘
That should come as no surprise - debt loads aren’t materially affected.
‘Debt-for-nature agreements are often described as deals where everyone benefits: ... This, however, is clearly too simplistic an analysis of debt-for-nature agreements.‘
Yeah, even in 1990, the World Bank is clearly not buying it.
‘Soon after the onset of the debt crisis in 1982, conservationists began to argue…‘
Wait - what? 1982? What an extraordinary coincidence, because that’s when the World Charter for Nature was launched, yet again with Maurice Strong at the centre of things.
On page 19 we further find -
‘Perhaps the most controversial aspect of debt-for-nature swaps is the possibility that the swaps may result in the debtor country relinquishing aspects of its sovereignty to the international environmental group.‘
… yeah… no doubt that’s their entire point.
‘But there has never been a single debt-fornature swap that resulted in a transfer of land ownership from a debtor country to an international environmental group.‘
The process is more complicated, because the outcome isn’t a transfer of land ownership per se, but rather a transfer of land ownership rights. You know, so that ‘ecosystem services’ like those delightful mangrove ‘blue carbon credits’ can be monetised.
I suppose a quick peek at legislative matters might be considered of importance. So here’s the ‘Debt-for-Nature Initiatives and the Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA): Status and Implementation‘23, courtesy of the Congressional Research Service, 2018.
‘Congress in 1989 directed the Secretary of the Treasury to ask the U.S. Executive Director of the World Bank to develop a pilot debt-for-nature program and other ways of reducing debt owed by foreign countries while generating funds for the environment. A subsequent law, the International Development and Finance Act of 1989, authorized the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to make grants to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to purchase debt in three-party transactions‘
… make grants to NGOs, using taxpayer funding of course.
‘Together, the P.L. 480, USAID, Ex-Im, and CCC debt-reduction authorizations were undertaken as part of President George H. W. Bush’s Enterprise for the Americas Initiative. In 1996, USAID was further authorized by Congress to conduct swaps, buybacks, and cancellations of debt owed to the United States by eligible Latin American and Caribbean countries (P.L. 104-107). In 1998, the Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA; P.L. 105-214; 22 U.S.C. 2431) was passed, allowing debt swaps, buybacks, and restructuring to generate funds for tropical forest conservation worldwide‘
And here’s the ‘Tropical Forest Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2018‘24, for the record. Yeah - it’s current.
That… was quite the intro, no? Because we’ve finally arrived at the primary document; ‘For the Conservation of Earth’25 - the proceedings of that 1987 conference. And given this build-up, it better be good, right?
Oh, but it is. Right up there with the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere conference proceedings. In fact, that’s probably no coincidence, because in many ways, it appears the document which tie the initiatives launched in 1968 back together.
For starters, the conference document is chock full of names we’ve seen before. We have Brundtland - of course. We have Maurice Strong - of course. We have James Baker, William K Reilly, Michael Gwynne, Mostafa K Tolba, and even David Rockefeller.
Michael Gwynne relates to global surveillance.
William K Reilly relates to the Rockefeller-funded Conservation Foundation (for starters).
And the topics - oh those topics - they drag in ‘Our Common Future’, ‘GEMS/GRID’, ‘Biosphere Reserves’, the Ramsar Convention, Resource Management, Biological Diversity, ‘Traditional Cultures’ (as if they care), and ‘Conservation for Sustainable Development’.
And here’s GEMS -
… Biological Diversity…
… and Biosphere Reserves…
The conference proceedings then carry on with a ‘Denver Declaration’, stating that -
‘There is a direct connection between healthy natural ecological systems and the economic and political stability of all nations‘
‘The productivity of Earth's natural resource base is rapidly deteriorating, as evidenced by desertification, deforestation, …‘
I’m sure you catch the drift -
‘A new initiative is needed in worldwide conservation:‘
Ooh - exciting, see if you can guess what it is -
‘Because new sources of funding must be mobilized to augment the expansion of conservation activities, a new International Conservation Banking Program should be created to integrate international aid for environmental management into coherent, common programs for recipient countries based on objective assessments of each country's resources and needs.‘
And let’s just check out this prediction by Irving Mintzer of the World Resources Institute back in 1987 -
“If current trends continue, the atmosphere will warm by about 1.5° to 4.5° C by the year 2030. Warming of just 2° C will take the earth out of the range of anything that has been experienced in the last ten million years. ”
This guy is clearly an expert, because only contemporary experts can be conclusively wrong, yet still be employable.
Brundtland then opens up the proceedings with a boring and predictable paper.
Let’s start with Maurice Strong (and James Baker). Should be nice and quick because these big names rarely make revolutionary statements - that’s for the minions to do, those who will be held to account, should things turn out for the worse.
Strong emphasises moral and ethic guidelines, that ‘the entire world is a system’, indeed a ‘living organism’. Yeah, there’s that ‘Spaceship Earth’ metaphor again. He carries on, speaking of climate change, sustainable development for all - ALL - countries, ecoconvergence, before it becomes somewhat more exciting through this next quote -
‘We must try to find ways for environmentally sound projects to pay for themselves. To do this, we will need innovative thinking and action, especially if we're to meet the financial needs of the developing countries. For one thing, we must improve costbenefit analysis to take into account longer-term environmental benefits and costs.’
In other words, we need innovative blended finance structures for the benefit of…
’Many conservation projects do not show a good rate of return in conventional economic terms, by the evidence that other such projects do, in many cases bringing a higher economic return than more conventional, infrastructural projects. For these profitable projects, we must develop new sources of finance from private investment.‘
… private equity (because conservation projects suck as investments).
‘The idea of swapping debt for environmental action is another new idea with great potential. Those who make economic policy—leaders of business, ministers of industry, agriculture, forestry and transport, who also make environmental policy—must be accountable for their effects on the earth.‘
Yes, we must all sign up for those debt-for-nature swaps, and those who refuse… well, that’s where those ESG values become of importance, no?
‘The future of the planet is everybody's responsibility and it involves everybody's future. No longer can we secure our individual futures and those of our children by our own individual activities and plans.‘
Well, unfortunately, on that part I sadly agree. It’s becoming virtually impossible to secure the future of our children, due to politicians who do anything but act in the capacity of voter interest.
As for James Baker, let’s zip through his… tedious contribution, because it can pretty much be summed up as such -
‘CONSERVATION AT THE WORLD BANK: A NEW EMPHASIS‘
Of course, said ‘emphasis’ still hadn’t hit the World Bank by 1990.
I’m sure David Rockefeller’s paper is of primary interest. I told you - these big names generally deliver dull speeches. This is no exception.
‘There is an urgent need for a majority consensus when it comes to matters affecting human survival‘
Uh - we already had a phoney ‘consensus’ in 1979.
‘One of the more rewarding experiences for me in preparing for this paper was reading the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. The very fact that the environment and development are placed together is, in itself, encouraging. The emphasis in the report on "sustainable development" is especially encouraging if we are to escape the tyrannies which are the product of extremes and absolutes. The first extreme I refer to—that of the ravagers of our natural resources— is in part rooted in the belief of some single-minded businessmen that it is acceptable to sacrifice the environment of the future for present profit‘
The sheer hypocrisy. It’s palpable. Regardless, he carries on outlining our evolving ecosystem, that the forces of man’s destruction are now greater than ever, and that biological diversity really is very, very important. He than suggests integrating environment-in-all-policies, using debt-for-equity swaps, and creating a World Conservation Bank - which of course is the primary objective of this conference.
Finally, he calls for the third world to be showered with Western taxpayer cash.
Next, let’s do Jay D Hair’s ‘International Program Initiatives’ -
‘… we must acknowledge that human health as well as the health of wild species are directly dependent on the health of our global environment‘
You don’t say!
‘The National Wildlife Federation participated in and endorsed a second, major step—the first implementation of the debt-for-nature concept—as government agreed to set aside nearly four million acres of rain forest in exchange for retirement of $650,000 of debt. Moreover, the federation fully supports Congressional legislation to encourage the World Bank to suspend loan payments for countries that protect tropical forests. Debt for nature swaps are golden opportunities to save critical wildlife habitats while paying off a portion of the Third World's $1 trillion debt.‘
One trillion dollars. In 1987. And supposedly, $650k is sufficient to ‘conserve’ four million acres! I’m in the wrong industry, I can tell you that much.
‘In 1981, Norman Myers, …, presented a thought-provoking idea. If wildlife is not economically self-sufficient, …, there is little point in saving its living space. If it pays its own way, some of it will survive. If it can't, it won't. He went on in the article to call for the commercialization of wildlife in many parts of Africa. In certain key ecological areas, he called for total protection.‘
Soooooo… he called for monetisation of nature, in short, including that wildlife.
‘Indeed, economic exploitation to conserve wildlife appears, on its face, to be a contradiction in philosophy. In fact, it is not. A survey of international conservation leaders, conducted by International Wildlife just about two years ago, indicated the same belief: That wildlife and wilderness ecosystems must be given an economic value or we stand in danger of losing them to the poverty and hunger of the Third World.‘
Just in case you didn’t think he was serious. He’s dead serious.
Now, I’ve spent a lot of time documenting global surveillance. A lot of time. So on that note, let’s do Michael Gwynne next; ‘The GEMS/GRID Toolbox’ -
He leaves no doubt that he’s a fully signed up member of the Spaceship Earth metaphor; earth is a single entity, and all elements are interconnected. He then goes to state that UNEP was established in 1972, and as part thereof the Earthwatch Programme, of which, GEMS - the Global Environmental Monitoring System - is the key component.
142 nations collaborated with the GEMS initiative already at this stage, leading to 22 different monitoring networks of which two are water and air. But they also consider soils, forests, and other resources of the living earth, including habitat and endangered animals. All of this in cooperation with the IUCN, who operate a monitoring centre.
Further is outlined the Geographical Information System (GIS) and GRID (Global Resources Information Database), which in short is the global database for gathered information, which is revealed to have a node at NASA, thereby potentially looping in the Department of Defense and hence GEIS.
The DoD link could easily be important. In fact, I seriously doubt that it isn’t.
What furthermore of interest is that already by 1987, satellite data has been integrated, and this allows them to examine land-use changes, global climate change and so forth. GIS enable them to overlap monitoring data, and the IUCN at the time produced a report on elephant quotas, which was forwarded to CITES.
I bet you didn’t realise how advanced their capabilities were by 1987, no?
And let’s do those ‘reserves’ next, through Kenton Miller’s paper on ‘Achieving a World Network of Protected Areas’.
It calls for the establishment of more reserves, more conservation, more biological diversity… and highlights the role of IUCN - ‘In 1959 the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) mandated IUCN to monitor the status and trends of the world's national parks and other types of reserves‘
Nice! It isn’t even done by an undemocratic organisation (ie, the United Nations). It’s done by one of their NGOs. This is how they work to strengthen our democracy, no doubt.
‘In 1980, in partnership with UNEP and WWF, IUCN launched the World Conservation Strategy. UNESCO and FAO were important collaborators in the long process of consultation. This landmark document was prepared…‘
Yeah, that document26 - from 1980 - is a major milestone alright, but that’s for another day.
‘Most countries in the world have some form of protected-areas system. One can best assess how well these established systems protect biological diversity by looking at their distribution within each country and by assessing coverage within each biogeographical province or region. Within the world's protected area system, particular significance is attached to those areas which, although set up nationally, are given a degree of recognition under an international convention or through their participation in an international programme.‘
Oh golly, what are they trying to sell?
‘Ninetysix countries are now party to the World Heritage Convention, and within these countries 70 natural sites have been inscribed on the World Heritage List. Forty countries have acceded to the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, listing some 350 sites amounting to well over 10 million hectares.‘
And the one we’re waiting for -
‘Seventy nations have set up 266 biosphere reserves under UNESCO's Man and Biosphere Programme‘
The paper further goes to identify the World Charter for Nature, the World Heritage Convention, and presses the importance of the human dimension in conservation planning through - naturally - yet another paper written by the IUCN. And finally -
‘Our experience shows that this can best be accomplished by preparing a National Conservation Strategy to ensure that both conservation and development are sustainable. This is the World Conservation Strategy in action‘
Next up, three papers which all include… er, common terminology; we have Paul Pritchland’s ‘Conservation and National Parks’… which goes heavy on the Gaia philosophy and predictably drags in the need for a global perspective, the need for NGOs, and states that the time is ripe for adding to the world’s network of protected areas.
And the following will only ever lead to one thing -
‘Man the dominant must assume the responsibility of his role as steward or threaten his own survival. Man the player must realize that, as in the game of chess, each piece, king and pawn, is necessary to play the game. Man the earthling must assure the health of the whole organism, Earth, in order to secure his own place on it.‘
Which of course is ‘Spaceship Earth’ yet again, and hence General Systems Theory.
Then we have Roderick Frazier Nash’s ‘The United States - Why Wilderness‘, which early on mentions the limits of earth, of our limited planet, that humans are members and not masters of the community of life, speaks of our rights and ethical obligations, for the need of ecological balance, the need to challenge the growth ethic, and interestingly adds that -
‘The last and least anthropocentric wilderness benefit derives from the very recent idea that nonhuman life and even wild ecosystems themselves have intrinsic value and the right to exist‘
Sooo… launch an Intrinsic Exchange perchance?
‘In a limited world everything must have limits including human population and civilization. Only cancer cells respect no limits, and in doing so they destroy their habitat and perish….‘
And this sounds eerily similar to what I read in those Society for the Advancement of General Systems Theory Yearbooks, which probably isn’t a coincidence given -
‘The existence of wildernessis the surest sign that mankind has understood this truth and that he is prepared to put his own legitimate demands into ecological balance with those of his fellow travelers on spaceship earth‘
… which even manages to sound a tad One Health-esque.
Onto Charles Lankester’s ‘A New Frontier in Development and the Environment’ which speaks of the need for more environmental management ‘of our heritage’ due to degradation, deforestation and so forth, with a reference to ‘Spaceship Earth’ also to be spotted. And finally -
‘Good projects do find adequate financing. The proposed World Conservation Banking Programme would provide a mechanism for any government, government agency, aid agency, multilateral development bank, corporations, foundations, NGOs and private citizens to join together in a communal response to finance and cofinance the necessary environmental projects that others have eloquently talked about and outlined.‘
And to finish things off we see Sweatman, Martin, Strong and even Russell Train (of the Council on Environmental Quality + Conservation Foundation) listed either on the board of directors, or acting in capacity of senior advisors. In fact, Vance Martin is the editor of the procedings, the man listed above the President of the WILD Foundation.
And finally… listed as an honorary patron… Edmund the Rothschild.
I originally started writing this as a susbstack note - no, really. But along the way, the skeletons just kept dropping out of the closet.
My primary issue with Rothschild and the claims of conspiracy theory is this - were they shown to have a 2% stake in… whatever, that’d be one thing. But they’re not. They’re systemically scrubbed - everywhere.
There is absolutely no chance that they’re not highly influential behind the scenes. None. And consequently, their complete absense sets off the alarm bell.
It’s not just the participation at this conference. It’s not the Moringa fund being the trial balloon. Nor is it Ariane’s involvement with the Global Landscapes Forum, or even CIFOR. Or David being our future ‘Spaceship Earth navigator’ (per CNN). Nor is it because Emma Rothschild is married to Collegium International man of action, Amartya Sen. Or Miriam Rothschild’s involvement with early day IUCN. Nor is it because of Lynn’s Inclusive Capitalism. Or Charles Rothschild and the Wildlife Trust. Or the source of Rhodes’s borrowing. And it’s not because both Macron and Breton are former employees, who both now wield disproportionate influence, acting expessly against the people.
It’s because of all of those. And in spite thereof - they somehow manage to remain almost entirely out of the limelight???
There’s about the same likelihood of them not being influential as those debt-for-equity swaps benefiting anyone but the house. And it somewhat appears even that proverbial house is owned by those same interests.
And - you know - while I can’t absolutely confirm George Hunt’s pivotal claim, I have independently come to essentially all those very same intermediate conclusions - though via a somewhat more scenic route.
Thanks for the Geo. Hunt videolink.
Obviously, your statement that no-one really understood the ultimate purpose at this stage in time is said tongue-in-cheek because you have painstakingly shown the setting up of the scheme.
This is so deep that it is not fixable. This is what is missing in the criticisms about the WHO treaty currently as if this 90 year old locomotive can be stopped in any other way than getting off of the tracks by just getting out of the WHO and its parent, the U.N. Therefore, these people serve as useful idiots or controlled opposition to obscure the prison walls closing in.
(Similarly, the virus-no virus theater serves to, likewise, remove the fact that there was no pandemic of a novel deadly virus and that it will not come again and, therefore, does not require an onerous government approach.)
Great job all around. Thanks.