May / June 1997

Table of Contents

About this edition... Protecting American Land The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act (HR901) Testimony in Support of HR901 presented by Henry Lamb, Executive Vice President of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources June 10, 1997 Bioregionalism: Sustainable Communities Surronded by Wildlands The Earth Charter Benchmark Draft, March 18, 1997 Earth Charter: Analysis and Comment By Henry Lamb

The Consensus Process: Developing an appropriate response The American Heritage Rivers Initiative The La Paz Agreement: Border Region XXI Is Washington Waking up? Treaties scheduled to be ratified The Gray Ranch A case study in global governance Gore versus the Automobile "Eliminating the internal combustion engine" By Alan Caruba

About this edition...

The testimony submitted in support of HR901 should provide documentation to help convince local officials that the land grab by the UN and the federal government is real and ongoing. The article on Bioregional Management is further evidence that the enlightened elite are, indeed, planning the future of every American.

Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbechev have finally finished their "Earth Charter." The draft presented on page 12 will be circulating during the next several months for adoption by the 185 member-nations of the UN. Read it carefully.

Border Region XXI, an offshoot of the La Paz Agreement and NAFTA, is beginning to build a head of steam. The Trilateral Committee, created by a Memorandum of Understanding (see Gray Ranch Article, page 24) threatens both borders.

The "Consensus" article in the last issue generated such a response from all over the country, we are offering some ideas about how to deal with the process (page 14).

A guest commentary by Alan Caruba (page 26) reveals what Al Gore plans to do with the internal combustion engine. It's scary!

We have decided to reprint all the back issues from 1995 and 1996, along with all the newspaper columns we've published in those years. Regular readers never see the newspaper columns, and newspaper readers never see ecologic. Now both are available in a perfect-bound volume that will be an important collectable, as well as a valuable research tool.

Newcomers to the issue of property rights and the UN will benefit from reading about the development of issues and events as they unfolded during these critical years. We are offering both of these volumes at a special pre-publication price. Get your copy today. (See opposite page).

Protecting American Land
The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act

The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act (HR901) is again wending its way through Congress. And again, the Clinton Administration is promising a veto. The bill will simply require the administration to obtain Congressional approval before designating any American land as a part of any UN program. It will also require that existing Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites be presented to Congress for specific approval. Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution provides that Congress, not the executive branch, is to "manage" federal lands. The administration contends that Congressional involvement "would impose unwise restrictions" on federal agencies, and "would unduly retrict the existing legal and administrative framework for implementation of important U.S. commitments to international environmental cooperation...."

Rafe Pomerance, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, told a Congressional Committee that the Department of State "strongly opposes HR901, " because it "would add political and bureaucratic regulation that is unnecessary." Prior to his present position in the State Department, Rafe Pomerance was the Chief Policy Analyst for the World Resources Institute. His boss was Gustave Speth, who, after serving on the Clinton/Gore transition team, became the Executive Director of the United Nations Development Program. Throughout the 1980s, the World Resources Institute, along with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), developed and published the documents which led to Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Kenton Miller, of the World Resources Institute, coordinated the infamous Section 13 of the Global Biodiversity Assessment, which describes how Biosphere Reserves are to be used as the nucleus of a world-wide system of protected areas required by Article 8 of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

While claiming that Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites do not authorize the UN to dictate land use in America, the administration admits that the U.S. has "international commitments." The administration ignores the fact that in order for a Biosphere Reserve to be admitted to the world wide network of Biosphere Reserves, the federal government must agree to meet certain "criteria" and "adhere to certain conditions" of land management -- criteria and conditions that are established by the UN -- not by the United States Congress.

HR901 will almost certainly garner the 218 votes needed for passage. To override a veto, 290 votes are needed in the House, and 67 votes are necessary in the Senate. This is a formidable task which will require educating many Congressmen. Here follows the testimony offered by the Environmental Conservation Organization which may be helpful in convincing representatives to support the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act.

Comments of
Henry Lamb, Executive Vice President

Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO)
Hollow Rock, Tennessee

Before the
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Resources

June 10, 1997

Regarding
The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act (HR901)

Mr. Chairman, and committee members, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act (HR901). In our judgement, this is one of the most important measures Congress will consider this session. My name is Henry Lamb, Executive Vice President of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), and Chairman of the Board of Sovereignty International, Inc. We believe this bill will provide three vital functions for the American people: (1) it will allow Congress to take back its Constitutional authority to "manage" federal lands; (2) it will provide land owners recourse to elected officials when their private property rights are infringed by UN land designations; and (3) it will allow Congress, rather than an agency of the United Nations, to determine the appropriate use of American land and resources.

This Committee, and the American people, have been told that designations of American lands as Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites are benign, honorary designations that have no legal impact and no authority to dictate land use. Such a characterization may have been accurate in the 1970s, when UNESCO launched its Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Program, but, according to the Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves, "the context in which biosphere reserves operate has changed considerably, as was shown by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) and, in particular, the Convention on Biological Diversity."¹

This Committee, and the American people, have been told by Administration representatives that "The United Nations does not have any authority to affect federal land management decisions within the United States," and that "...international agreements...have in no way been utilized to exclude Congress from land management decisions, nor do they have the ability to do so."² Yet, each of the 47 Biosphere Reserves in America was nominated by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, with no review, oversight, or involvement of Congress. According to the Seville Strategy, each Biosphere Reserve "must meet a minimal set of criteria and adhere to a minimal set of conditions before being admitted to the Network [The World Network of Biosphere Reserves]."³ The United Nations derives its authority to affect land management decisions within the United States through the Executive Branch's commitment to meet these "criteria" and "conditions" which are established by the United Nations, not by the Congress of the United States.

Mr. Chairman, these criteria and conditions were adopted by the International Conference on Biosphere Reserves, meeting in Seville, Spain, March 20-25, 1995, pursuant to UNESCO Resolution 27/C2.3. They include the following land management criteria:

"...each biosphere reserve should contain three elements: one or more core areas, which are securely protected sites for conserving biological diversity; a clearly identified buffer zone which usually surrounds or adjoins the core areas; and a flexible transition area, or area of co-operation...."⁴

This is precisely the same land management plan described in the Global Biodiversity Assessment, which says:

"...representative areas of all major ecosystems in a region need to be reserved, that blocks should be as large as possible, that buffer zones should be established around core areas, and that corridors should connect these areas. This basic design is central to the recently proposed Wildlands Project in the United States" (Noss, 1992).⁵

Within each of these three elements, or zones, permissible land use is further defined by the United Nation's Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves, and the Global Biodiversity Assessment, not by the Congress of the United States.

Biosphere Reserves are seen by the United Nations, not as places to hide "black helicopters," as suggested by Representative Miller (D-CA),⁶ but as a "contribution...to the implementation of...the Convention on Biological Diversity...."⁷ This conclusion comes, not from the "twilight zone," as has been suggested by opponents of this Bill, but directly from the official documents of the United Nations, specifically from The Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves; minutes of the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity; and from the Global Biodiversity Assessment.

The minutes of the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity contains this report:

"Mr. Peter Bridgewater, speaking in his capacity as Chairperson of the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Council, presented the report on the International Conference on Biosphere Reserves, held in Seville, at which the Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves had been adopted. He said that the goals of the Strategy reflected the major concerns of the Convention on Biological Diversity. There are 328 biosphere reserves in 82 countries, making up an effective world network which could be expanded and integrated into the strategies and action plans provided for in Article 6 of the Convention on Biological Diversity. They would serve as useful tools for the implementation of the Articles of the Convention."⁸

The Global Biodiversity Assessment is an 1140-page document created by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), and described by UNEP's Executive Director, Elizabeth Dowdswell, as "a compendium of knowledge for the benefit of those involved with the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity."⁹ The document says:

"The most important global system of sites is the Man and the Biosphere network organized by UNESCO...there exists a significant potential to build a functional international network for biodiversity research related to management...."¹⁰

The Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves says:

"Incorporate biosphere reserves into plans for implementing Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biological Diversity."¹¹

Clearly, Biosphere Reserves are viewed by the United Nations as the starting point for implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Global Biodiversity Assessment also declares that:

"National biodiversity strategies, action plans, or programs -- as called for under Article 6 of the Convention on Biological diversity and in Agenda 21 -- are intended to identify appropriate conservation and sustainable use measures and specify how they will be implemented."¹²

Because Biosphere Reserve designation requires adherence to these "criteria" and "conditions" established by the United Nations, the 47 Biosphere Reserves in America are being used to implement the land management provisions and objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity, even though the U.S. Senate has not yet ratified the Convention, nor has Congress approved the provisions and objectives being implemented as specified by the United Nations.

It is our view that Congress must approve the management of each and every Biosphere Reserve because the land and resource management objectives published by the United Nations may not be the same as those that would be established by Congress or by the private citizens who own the land and resources that the UN believes should be managed. For example, the United Nations Environment Program believes:

"We should accept biodiversity as a legal subject and supply it with adequate rights. This could clarify the principle that biodiversity is not available for uncontrolled human use. It would therefore become necessary to justify any interference with biodiversity, and to provide proof that human interests justify the damage caused to biodiversity."¹³

America has prospered in the belief and practice that biodiversity should be controlled by its owner without interference by government unless the owner's use demonstrably infringes upon the rights or property of another person. We think that belief and practice is as valid today as it was when it was enshrined in our Constitution. The idea of having to justify the use of private property to any government, especially to the United Nations, is an idea that has no place in America. Yet, it is an idea that permeates the United Nations. As early as 1976, The UN Conference on Human Settlements concluded that:

"Land...cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable."¹⁴

Public control of land use is, indeed, a high-priority objective of the Man and the Biosphere Program, and of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The United Nations Environment Program has determined that: "Widespread degradation of natural ecosystems is occurring...as a result of human-induced activities such as fragmentation, livestock grazing, logging and invasion by feral animals and plants,"¹⁵ and that "The most effective...way of conserving biodiversity...is to prevent the conversion or degradation of habitat to begin with."¹⁶ The term "conservation" is defined in the Global Biodiversity Assessment "in its most restricted form, to mean `protection.'"¹⁷ A protected area, such as a Biosphere Reserve, is "a legally established land or water area under either public or private ownership that is regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation goals."¹⁸ "Areas of key significance... may well be zoned out of human visitation."¹⁹

UNESCO's conceptual scheme provides for the three zones within Biosphere Reserves to be "open-ended"²⁰ and ever expanding. The Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves instructs national programs to "Seek opportunities for twinning between biosphere reserves and establish transboundary biosphere reserves..." and to "Link biosphere reserves with each other, and with other protected areas, through green corridors and in other ways that enhance biodiversity conservation and ensure that these links are maintained."²¹ These instructions are a mirror-image of the land use control plans expressed in the Global Biodiversity Assessment and in the Wildlands Project.

The Wildlands Project, authored by Dr. Reed F. Noss, and embraced by the United Nations Environment Program, suggests:

"...that at least half of the land area of the 48 conterminous states should be encompassed in core reserves and inner corridor zones (essentially extensions of core reserves) within the next few decades.... Nonetheless, half of a region in wilderness is a reasonable guess of what it will take to restore viable populations of large carnivores and natural disturbance regimes, assuming that most of the other 50 percent is managed intelligently as buffer zone. Eventually, a wilderness network would dominate a region...with human habitations being the islands. The native ecosystem and the collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans."²²

HR901 makes no judgement as to the appropriateness of any of the land management schemes being pursued through the Biosphere Reserve Program. It would simply require the Administration to allow Congress to review the land management schemes and make its own judgement as to appropriateness -- as stipulated in Article IV, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution. If the land management "criteria" and "conditions" established by the United Nations, which are being implemented by the Administration are, in fact, benign, and consistent with laws enacted by duly elected representatives of the people, then the Administration should have no reluctance for Congress to review and approve those "criteria" and "conditions" as they are applied to individual Biosphere Reserves and other areas designated by the United Nations.. Strong opposition by the Administration, including a veto threat,²³ raises the inevitable question as to "why" the Administration does not want Congress to exercise its Constitutional responsibility in the management of federal lands and the protection of private property rights.

The Man and the Biosphere Program is a world-wide network of 328 Biosphere Reserves dedicated to implementation of the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity and Agenda 21. HR901 will give Congress the opportunity to determine whether or not those objectives are appropriate for the 47 Biosphere Reserves that already exist in America, and for those proposed in the future. Unless Congress enacts HR901, and assumes authority to approve UN land designations, private citizens who are affected by such designations will be at the mercy of non-elected bureaucrats, and will continue to have no recourse when their private property rights are infringed.

For these reasons, we strongly urge Congress to enact HR901 with a majority sufficient to override the threatened veto. Thank you.

- ecologic staff

Endnotes:

1. "Biosphere Reserves: The First Twenty Years," "The Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves," March, 1995, p. 1.

2. Statement of George T. Frampton, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, before the House Committee on Resources regarding, H.R. 3752, The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act, September 12, 1996, p. 2, 3.

3. The Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves, Op. Cit., p. 2.

4. Ibid, p. 3.

5. "Measures for conservation of biodiversity and Sustainable Use of its Components," Global Biodiversity Assessment, Cambridge University Press for the United Nations Environment Program, Section 13.4.2.2.3, p. 993.

6. Congressional Record, September 26, 1996, p. H11277

7. The Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves, Op. Cit., p. 4.

8. Agenda Item 1(7), Report of the First Meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Second Meeting, 6-17 November, Jakarta, Indonesia, (UNEP/CBD/COP2/5, September 21, 1995).

9. Foreword, Global Biodiversity Assessment, Published for the United Nations Environment Program, (New York, NY, Cambridge University Press, 1995) p. viii.

10. Global Biodiversity Assessment, Op Cit., Section 7.3.7, p. 533.

11. The Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves, Op. Cit., p. 7.

12. Ibid, Section 13.1.4.1, p. 927.

13. Global Biodiversity Assessment, Section 11.3.3.2, p. 787.

14. "Preamble," Agenda Item 10, Report of Habitat: United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, Vancouver, 31 May - 11 June, 1976, (A/Conf.70/15), photocopied from the archives of the UN Library at Geneva, Switzerland, December 6, 1996 (on file).

15. Global Biodiversity Assessment, Section 13.4.4, p. 1004.

16. Ibid, Section 13.4.3, p. 994.

17. Ibid, Section 13.1.1, p. 924.

18. Ibid, Section 13.4.2.1, p. 982.

19. Ibid, Section, p. 989.

20. Strategic Plan for the U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program, 1994, U.S. Department of State, p. 4.

21. The Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves, Op. Cit., pp. 7, 14.

22. Reed F. Noss, "The Wildlands Project," Wild Earth, Special Issue, 1992, pp.13- 15. (Wild Earth is published by the Cenozoic Society, P.O. Box 492, Canton, NY 13617).

23. "Statement of Administration Policy," Congressional Record, September 26, 1996, p. H11276.

Bioregionalism:

Sustainable Communities Surrounded by Wildlands

Bioregionalism is the wave of the future. It is a new concept of social organization. It is a concept that is unknown to most Americans, but one which will affect every American. The concept, in its totality, has never been debated or approved by Congress, yet it is being implemented incrementally across the land. Bioregionalism defies precise definition because the concept is still evolving. Consequently, there is no concise, illustrative description available. There is, however, a growing volume of literature about bioregionalism from which a preliminary picture may be drawn. Bioregionalism is a system of social organization which seeks to "conserve, sustainably use, and equitably share the benefits of biodiversity."¹

Bioregions are given ambiguous, but meaningful, status through the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The treaty requirement to conserve, sustainably use, and equitably share the benefits of biodiversity, presupposes a system of management to insure compliance with the requirement. That system of management requires a massive reorganization of society. Kenton Miller, of the World Resources Institute, coordinator of Section 13 of the Global Biodiversity Assessment, and author of Bioregional Management, says:

"Bioregional management draws upon a number of different approaches, including bioregionalism, biosphere reserves, integrated conservation and development projects and ecosystem management... Nested within [the bioregion] will be other scales [i.e. ecosystems, watersheds, stream flows] suitable for work on specific objectives, such as the restoration of stream flow in a river catchment, retaining old growth forest habitats...while reducing pressure on wildlands."²

Bioregions are geographical units defined by ecological characteristics without regard to political jurisdiction. There is no set size, shape, nor boundary. The Global Biodiversity Assessment says that a bioregion should be

"large enough to maintain the integrity of the region's biological communities, habitats, and ecosystems, support important ecological processes...[and] be small enough for local people to consider it home."³

Aside from being as large as possible, bioregions are being designed to incorporate three types of land use: (1) protected areas; (2) buffer zones; and (3) zones of cooperation, or "transitional" zones.

The Global Biodiversity Assessment, published by the United Nations Environment Programme, explicitly cites the "Wildlands Project," authored by Dr. Reed Noss, as "central" to the protection of biodiversity as required by Article 8 of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Dr. Noss calls for "at least half" of the lower 48 states to be restored to core wilderness areas, which are connected by corridors of wilderness. Noss says this should be enough, providing that most of the remaining land is managed for conservation objectives.⁴ The buffer zones which surround the wilderness areas are designed to be managed for conservation objectives with limited human activity. Transition zones are the areas in which sustainable communities are to be developed.

Within each bioregion, dozens, even hundreds of individual projects may be underway simultaneously, all having some relevance to the ultimate construction of the bioregion. Two primary components of bioregions are Biosphere Reserves, and rivers and streams protected by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, or the River Heritage Program. Rivers and streams are being used to form the corridors that connect the core wilderness areas. Biosphere Reserves are important because 47 such reserves already exist and are committed to bioregional management by virtue of the voluntary agreement implied by the UN designation. Biosphere Reserves are described as the "laboratories for learning" how to create and implement bioregional management. The Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves, says, "Biosphere reserves are sites where this objective is tested, refined, demonstrated and implemented."⁵

The proliferation of "Heritage Areas" in the last few years is also a part of bioregional development. Reed Noss was selected by the Department of Interior to produce a nationwide study of endangered ecosystems. In his report, he acknowledged that most of his information was not taken from field studies, but from inventories and studies made by local Heritage Area groups.

Ecosystem management is an essential ingredient in the development of bioregions. The policy allows the Department of Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency to "manage" large, landscape scale, segments of land as a single unit, irrespective of political jurisdictions or ownership. Several Ecosystem Management Plans are now underway. The most advanced are the two Columbia River Basin Plans, nearly four years in the making. These two plans are within the bioregion many call "Cascadia," that stretches roughly from northern California and Nevada to the Yukon. The Sierra Club has proposed that the North American Continent be converted into 21 bioregions as illustrated and described in a special 1994 edition of Sierra.

To accommodate human populations, sustainable communities are being developed simultaneously. All across the nation, local communities are witnessing pressures to form sustainable communities, designate a Heritage Area, designate a river or stream, create open space, stop logging, ranching, and mining, and a variety of less conspicuous measures, all of which are a part of the reorganization of society leading toward bioregionalism.

In response to an announced Congressional hearing on the Land Between the Lakes Biosphere Reserve, situated on the Kentucky-Tennessee border, a talk radio program said that the UN was coming to remove 50,000 citizens from their homes. Comments such as this demonstrate concern, but also demonstrate a gross misunderstanding about how the UN is working to achieve the objective of bioregionalism.

Bioregionalism cannot be imposed by force in America. Neither Congress nor the people will allow it. Consequently, bioregionalism is being implemented by what is called "capacity building." Capacity building -- in UN-speak -- is "changing attitudes among constituents."⁶ In his 1996 paper entitled "Bioregional Management," Miller lists 20 ways to "develop the capacity to manage more complex and integrated bioregional programs." Among them are:

• Develop leadership - by using well-known individuals or organizations to convene local meetings. Samuel Johnson, CEO of the Johnson Wax Company, headquartered in Racine, Wisconcin, was chosen to head Racine's sustainable community process. The Nature Conservancy and other well-known environmental groups are at the forefront of activities in many communities.
• Use authority to foster cooperation - Miller says that "some regulation and regulatory authority is required to ensure minimum goals."
• Initially, focus on few issues - of interest to the widest possible set of stakeholders. Gradually, programs can be added to "embrace a more comprehensive list of issues and opportunities."
• Link conservation activities with socio-economic development - Recommendations from the President's Council on Sustainable Development go so far as to propose local building permit processes that give government the authority to dictate what kind of plants may be used for landscaping.
• Give Stakeholders incentives - "To get [stakeholders] to alter farming, fishing, or logging, or tourism practices, or to restore habitats on private lands, may require compensating them for a time...."
• Establish cooperative management options with stakeholders - such as conservation easements, separation of development rights, and land acquisitions that grant life tenure to the owner with a conservation management proviso.

All of these techniques are being used every day by governments and non-government organizations to advance the development of bioregionalism. The mechanism for management is also under development. It is as ill-defined as are bioregions. There are, however, central underlying principles that indicate the shape and design the management mechanism is taking.

Perhaps the fundamental principle of bioregional management is collaborative decision-making that utilizes the consensus process. Bioregions encompass several states and hundreds of local government bodies. There is virtually no hope of developing or implementing a comprehensive, integrated plan for conserving biodiversity at the landscape, or bioregional scale through the traditional process of decision-making on public policy issues. In fact, local elected bodies are seen as an obstacle to bioregional management. Stakeholder councils are the alternative of choice.

Dozens of stakeholder councils may be at work simultaneously within a bioregion. There may be several "visioning councils" at work designing sustainable communites within a bioregion. Another stakeholder council may be working on a forest management plan, while still another is working on designating a river, or a Biosphere Reserve, or a Scenic Highway, or a Heritage Area.

For the most part, private citizens are unaware of these activities. When an individual is directly affected by one or more of the activities, he may or may not get involved in the process, but rarely does he recognize that the activity is a part of a much broader objective.

When one first encounters a stakeholder council, it is usually seen as a single-issue activity. The idea that it is a part of a bioregional plan is beyond the comprehension of many. Frequently, even those who are promoting a particular objective through a stakeholder council are unaware that what they are doing is a part of a broader agenda. The broader agenda is Agenda 21, adopted at Rio de Janeiro's United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992

In the near term -- ten to fifteen years -- bioregional management will continue to evolve around stakeholder councils that are created to achieve specific objectives. Ways are now being developed to bypass local elected governmental bodies in order to implement public policies developed through the consensus process by non-elected stakeholders and appointed government officials. A frequently used method is the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among several governmental and/or non-governmental organizations. These MOAs can be developed to achieve almost any objective. For example, a stakeholder council for a transboundary Ecosystem Management Plan might develop an MOA with all the County Commissions within the plan area, to grant review and comment, or even approval authority, over local zoning and development projects within a county, in order to ensure compatibility with the Ecosystem Management Plan. Such agreements, often called "public/private partnerships," can not only diminish the authority of local elected officials, but also destroy the concept of accountability. Electors have no direct way of removing the stakeholders who gain ultimate authority for decision-making through such processes.

Bioregional management in the longer term -- fifteen years and beyond -- is expected to be vastly different. NGOs, which have been accredited by the United Nations, are expected to play an ever increasing role in both bioregional management and administration. Almost all stakeholder councils now operating include representation, if not domination, by paid representatives of NGOs. From those stakeholder councils now operating will emerge the more important councils within each bioregion. Eventually, the need will be recognized to create a "Bioregional Council" to coordinate the activities of all the stakeholder councils operating within a bioregion. The Bioregional Council will become the ultimate governing authority within the bioregion. The precise procedure for achieving this outcome has not yet been published. The desired outcome has been published, in Our Global Neighborhood⁷ and in other UN documents. A new "Assembly of the People," to consist of NGO representatives, and a new "Petitions Council," to consist of five to seven representatives of NGOs, are among the recommendations of the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance.

The Assembly of the People is to provide input to the UN General Assembly, and the Petitions Council is to screen petitions from NGOs at the bioregional and local levels which are to be directed to the appropriate UN agency for disposition.

Agenda 21, a masterfully written, soft-law, document, provides the broad policy foundation for this societal transformation. It is a document that comprehensively addresses every aspect of human life. The recommendations set forth in Agenda 21 represent, and give definition to the term "sustainable development." The policies are given legal status through international treaties such as the Conventions on Biological Diversity, Climate Change, and Desertification, and through the administrative implementation of recommendations contained in the President's Council on Sustainable Development Report, Sustainable America: A New Consensus. When the entire world has fully implemented the recommendations contained in Agenda 21, the world will have achieved "sustainability," according to the proponents of Agenda 21. Failure to implement the Agenda's recommendations will result in biological impoverishment and, ultimately, the collapse of the human civilization.

- ecologic staff

Endnotes

1. Kenton Miller, et al, "Bioregional Management: Implementing Biodiversity Goals in Practice," Framework Discussion Paper, Stream 2, Workshop 7, IUCN World Conservation Congress, October 21, 1996, p.3.

2. Ibid, p. 1.

3. "Measures for Conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable Use of its Components," Global Biodiversity Assessment (Section 10.1.5), Section 10 Draft, September 2, 1994, A Summary published by the Environmental Conservation Organization, Hollow Rock, TN, p. 13.

4. Reed Noss, "The Wildlands Project," Wild Earth, Special Edition, 1992, p. 15.

5. "Biosphere Reserves: The First Twenty Years," The Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves, UNESCO, March, 1995, p. 1.

6. Kenton, Op. Cit., p. 10.

7. "Global Civil Society," Our Global Neighborhood, The Report of The Commission on Global Governance, (New York, Oxford University Press, 1995) pp. 253-263.

The Earth Charter

(Benchmark Draft, March, 18, 1997)

The Earth Charter has been under development for years. The following "Benchmark Draft" is the latest iteration of a document that seeks to establish the philosophical foundation upon which future legislation and public policy will be constructed.

Earth is our home and home to all living beings. Earth itself is alive. We are part of an evolving universe. Human beings are members of an interdependent community of life with a magnificent diversity of life forms and cultures. We are humbled before the beauty of Earth and share a reverence for life and the sources of our being. We give thanks for the heritage that we have received from past generations and embrace our responsibilities to present and future generations.

The Earth Community stands at a defining moment. The biosphere is governed by laws that we ignore at our own peril. Human beings have acquired the ability to radically alter the environment and evolutionary processes. Lack of foresight and misuse of knowledge and power threaten the fabric of life and the foundations of local and global security. There is great violence, poverty, and suffering in our world. A fundamental change of course is needed.

The choice is before us: to care for Earth or to participate in the destruction of ourselves and the diversity of life. We must reinvent industrial-technological civilization, finding new ways to balance self and community, having and being, diversity and unity, short-term and long-term, using and nurturing.

In the midst of all our diversity, we are one humanity and one Earth family with a shared destiny. The challenges before us require an inclusive ethical vision. Partnerships must be forged and cooperation fostered at local, bioregional, national and international levels. In solidarity with one another and the community of life, we the peoples of the world commit ourselves to action guided by the following interrelated principles:

1. Respect Earth and all life. Earth, each life form, and all living beings possess intrinsic value and warrant respect independently of their utilitarian value to humanity.

2. Care for Earth, protecting and restoring the diversity, integrity, and beauty of the planet's ecosystems. Where there is risk of irreversible or serious damage to the environment, precautionary action must be taken to prevent harm.

3. Live sustainable, promoting and adopting modes of consumption, production and reproduction that respect and safeguard human rights and the regenerative capacities of Earth.

4. Establish justice, and defend without discrimination the right of all people to life, liberty, and security of person within an environment adequate for human health and spiritual well-being. People have a right to potable water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and food security.

5. Share equitably the benefits of natural resource use and a healthy environment among the nations, between rich and poor, between males and females, between present and future generations, and internalize all environmental, social and economic costs.

6. Promote social development and financial systems that create and maintain sustainable livelihoods, eradicate poverty, and strengthen local communities.

7. Practice non-violence, recognizing that peace is the wholeness created by harmonious and balanced relationships with oneself, other persons, other life forms, and Earth.

8. Strengthen processes that empower people to participate effectively in decision-making and ensure transparency and accountability in governance and administration in all sectors of society.

9. Reaffirm that Indigenous and Tribal peoples have a vital role in the care and protection of Mother Earth. They have the right to retain their spirituality, knowledge, lands, territories and resources.

10. Affirm that gender equality is prerequisite for sustainable development.

11. Secure the right to sexual and reproductive health, with special concern for women and girls.

12. Promote the participation of youth as accountable agents of change for local, bioregional and global sustainability.

13. Advance and put to use scientific and other types of knowledge and technologies that promote sustainable living and protect the environment.

14. Ensure that people throughout their lives have opportunities to acquire the knowledge, values, and practical skills needed to build sustainable communities.

15. Treat all creatures with compassion and protect them from cruelty and wanton destruction.

16. Do not do to the environment of others what you do not want done to your environment.

17. Protect and restore places of outstanding ecological, cultural, aesthetic, spiritual and scientific significance.

18. Cultivate and act with a sense of shared responsibility for the well-being of the Earth Community. Every person, institution and government has a duty to advance the indivisible goals of justice for all, sustainability, world peace, and respect and care for the larger community of life.

Embracing the values in this Charter, we can grow into a family of cultures that allows the potential of all persons to unfold in harmony with the Earth Community. We must preserve a strong faith in the possibilities of the human spirit and a deep sense of belonging to the universe. Our best actions will embody the integration of knowledge with compassion.

* * *

In order to develop and implement the principles in this Charter, the Nations of the world should adopt as a first step an international convention that provides an integrated legal framework for existing and future environmental and sustainable development law and policy.

Earth Charter : Analysis and Comment

By Henry Lamb

The Earth Charter is built upon the notion that "Earth itself is alive." This statement is not to be taken figuratively, as in "The hills are alive -- with the sound of music." The statement is a reflection of the gaia hypothesis, developed by James Lovelock, who, in 1988, told a UN Conference in Oxford, England, "On Earth, she [gaia] is the source of life everlasting and is alive now; she gave birth to humankind and we are a part of her." The idea that the Earth itself is alive, and the source of life, justifies the role of "Mother Earth" as used in principle 9.

The Charter observes that "Human beings have acquired the ability to radically alter the environment and evolutionary processes," and concludes that "Lack of foresight and misuse of knowledge and power threaten the fabric of life and the foundations of local and global security." The implication made is that "great violence, poverty, and suffering in our world," are the result of "lack of foresight and misuse of power" by human beings who have acquired the ability to alter the environment. The "fundamental change of course," which the Charter says is needed, implies that someone other than those who now "lack foresight and misuse knowledge" should be directing human activities that would eliminate "great violence, poverty, and suffering in our world."

This emotionally-charged language is carefully selected to evoke an emotional response. The ideas cannot stand critical analysis. In order to accept the ideas in this paragraph, one would have to conclude that prior to the time when humans "acquired the ability to radically alter the environment and evolutionary processes," there was no "great violence, poverty and suffering in our world." The "lack of foresight and misuse of power," observed by the Charter's authors, could be delineated as the development of the internal combustion engine and the use of fossil fuel energy sources; the development of refrigeration, electricity, communications, and the manufacture of all kinds of products that benefit humanity.

The Charter says "The choice is before us," and indeed it is. But the choice is not to "care for the Earth," or to "participate in the destruction of ourselves and the diversity of life," as the Charter claims. The choice is before us is to recognize that social progress thrives when human beings are free to pursue their own self-interest, or to accept the notion that social progress must be managed by those who do not "lack foresight and misuse power." History is replete with examples of social experiments where individual freedoms have been suppressed in order to eliminate "great violence, poverty, and suffering." Most notable among those experiments are the Soviet Union, Hitler's Germany, Castro's Cuba, Communist China, Mabutu's Zaire, and dozens of other examples where "great violence, poverty, and suffering" were eliminated from the world.

The 18 guiding principles set forth in the Charter provide the blueprint for constructing a global society managed by a handful of enlightened people who -- we are to assume -- do not "lack foresight" and who will not "misuse power."

The first principle rejects the anthropocentric world view, which has prevailed since the beginning of time, and adopts, instead, a biocentric world view. Anthropocentrism (man-centered) is the belief that human beings have greater value than other life forms, which exist for the benefit of human life. Biocentrism is the belief that "all living beings possess intrinsic value and warrant respect independently of their utilitarian value to humanity."

This fundamental shift in world view provides the justification for "protecting and restoring" the planet's ecosystems, even when there is no conclusive evidence that ecosystems need protecting or restoring, as is prescribed in the second principle. "Live sustainably," as called for in the third principle, is an ambiguous euphamism that empowers unnamed authorities to define sustainable "modes of consumption, production, and reproduction."

The fourth principle would "Establish justice," and define justice to be "the right of all people to life, liberty, and security of person." The balance of the fourth principle further defines "security of person" to include "an environment adequate for human health and spiritual well being, potable water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, and food security." Other UN documents define "security of person" to include adequate housing, medical care, a job, and the absence of discrimination, intolerance, or disruption of daily routines.

In order to "Establish justice" on a global basis, as defined by the Charter, and other UN documents, an enormous governmental machine would have to be created. Agenda 21 is the blueprint for the machinery of global governance, to provide "justice" to the peoples of the world. The cost estimate in 1992 dollars exceeded 600 billion per year.

To pay for such massive "justice," principle five requires that the world's wealth be "shared equitably" between "rich and poor, between males and females, between present and future generations." To generate the money needed to "share equitably," the world's wealth, "environmental, social and economic costs," are to be "internalized." This ambiguous term is UN-speak for the imposition of artificial and arbitrary taxes on natural resources -- such as fossil fuels, lumber, water, and air -- to be collected and distributed by various UN agencies.

Principle seven anticipates that non-violence and a peaceful world will be "created by harmonious and balanced relationships with oneself, other persons, other life forms, and Earth." There may be some hope of achieving balanced relationships with other persons, but rattlesnakes and disease-carrying mosquitoes may have trouble reading the Charter. Hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, drought, floods, and fire -- all manifestations of the Earth -- have never grasped the concept of non-violence; this Charter is unlikely to change that reality into "harmonious and balanced relationships."

Typical of UN-speak, principle eight sounds perfectly acceptable -- as far as it goes. It fails, however, to stipulate the ultimate authority for decision making. Nature did not create governments; it created individual human beings. All power granted to governments derives from the individual human beings that created the governments. Therefore, people who are not empowered to participate in the decision-making process are people whose inalienable right to self-governance has already been usurped by a government. To assert that the "the processes that empower people to participate in decision-making" should be strengthened, implies that the authority for decision making rests with the government. Governments which possess ultimate decision-making authority, not limited by the people governed, have historically been a progressively-tightening brake on social progress, and ultimately result in oppression upon the people, and inevitably collapse upon the people, causing "great violence, poverty, and suffering." The system of governance which these principles underlie is just such a system which claims ultimate decision-making authority, and presumes to allow people to participate in the process.

The 18 principles contained in the Earth Charter are a regurgitation of the 27 principles contained in the Rio Declaration and embrace the idea of managed societies rather than the idea of free societies.

Constructed on the ideas of free people, private property, limited government authority, and free enterprise, America has become the beacon of hope to the world. The UN, on the other hand, champions unlimited government authority, managed enterprise, public property, and managed societies. America is the last hope of preventing dominance of the world by the UN philosophy. Whether or not America will meet the challenge -- and remain free -- or be enticed into the folly of social equity, will be determined within the next few years. Those of us who remember the freedom to use our own property to create a future for our posterity -- secure in the belief that our government would defend us from all external threats -- are now compelled to convince our neighbors. We must convince them that individual freedom is more important than managed mediocrity; that lessons learned from failure produce a better life than government-enforced equity. And that the threat to our freedom comes in the form of sugar-coated promises of a better life for all. If we who have known America at its best, fail to preserve the principles on which it was built, we will have robbed our children, and their children for generations, of the greatest resource on earth.

The Consensus Process:

Developing an appropriate response

In communities across America, "stakeholder" councils are being formed, or have already been formed, to advance Agenda 21 to transform cities and towns into "sustainable communities." The "consensus process" is used to gain the appearance of public support for the principles of sustainability, applied to a particular community. The process is designed to take the public policy- making function away from elected officials and place it in the hands of professional bureaucrats, while giving the appearance of broad public input into the decision-making process.

Stakeholder councils are called by many names and are created for a variety of specific purposes. Whatever they are called, and whatever the stated purpose for which they are created, they all have several common characteristics, and all have a common objective: the implementation of some component of Agenda 21. To develop an effective local response, it is necessary to understand the objectives, the process, the techniques, and the players. While each community may experience a variety of different approaches, it is necessary to recognize the common principles that guide all such councils.

Objectives

The general objective of all stakeholder councils is to promote three primary values: environmental protection; equity; and sustainable economic development. To promote these values, a comprehensive "community" plan must be developed which links, or "integrates," all three values. In some communities, stakeholder councils are formed to work on a single component of a comprehensive plan that is to be combined with the work of other councils that may be working on different components in different geographical areas of the same community. The various councils may or may not know about the work of other councils that is underway simultaneously.

Currently, the most common stakeholder councils are related to the "visioning" process to create "Sustainable Communities;" Ecosystem Management Plans; Heritage Area or Corridor Plans; River Protection Plans; Biosphere Reserves; and Economic Renewal Plans. Almost always, the plan will encompass more than one political jurisdiction. In some instances, several counties and states may be included, as in the case of the East Texas Ecosystem Plan, which embraced 73 Texas counties and a small portion of Louisiana. In other instances, the plan may be confined to a single county or city. Rest assured, that when a plan focuses on a single town or county, someone, somewhere, is planning to incorporate that plan into a multi-jurisdictional plan.

The stated purpose of the stakeholder council may be related to environmental protection only, which is usually referred to as natural resource management. It could be related to any one of several other single subjects such as economic renewal, education, emergency response, or transportation. Or, the stated purpose could be to develop a comprehensive plan that addresses all the issues. Whatever the stated purpose, it will attempt to integrate environmental protection, equity, and sustainable economic development.

The Process

Stakeholder councils do not simply appear. Nor are they formed as the result of citizen response to a common problem. They are created -- with great care -- by someone. They could be formed by a government agency, or by several government agencies working together; they could be formed by NGOs (non-government organizations) or by a combination of government agencies and NGOs -- which is often the case. The Environmental Protection Agency and several other federal agencies offer grants to NGOs and local government agencies as incentives to create these councils and develop plans to achieve sustainable communities. Whoever instigates the process will carefully select individuals from the community to participate in a meeting which will evolve into a series of meetings. The individuals selected will be chosen because they are known to share philosophical objectives, and to represent broad segments of the community. The poor, disabled, indigenous populations are specifically targeted. Representatives from government agencies are also targeted. Typically, at least one elected official from each of the political jurisdictions in the plan area are invited. Someone from industry, and a landowner or two are also among those invited.

Formation of the original group is extremely important. The group must be dominated by people who are expected to support the objectives of the instigators. There also has to be an appearance of broad community representation. The original group may be quite small, or it could be quite large, depending upon the objectives and the size of the community and the plan area. The initial meeting is rarely advertised. Participants are invited personally, and frequently hold several meetings before the press or the community is ever informed. By the time the public becomes aware of the existence of the stakeholders council, it is pretty well organized and its work is well underway.

The Techniques

The Consensus Process -- often called "collaborative decision-making" -- is a process that begins with a predetermined outcome. The agencies or NGOs that assemble an Ecosystem Management visioning council, intend to establish an ecosystem management plan. The instigators know what they want included in the plan before the first meeting is ever scheduled. Those who assemble Sustainable Community visioning councils intend to establish a plan to achieve their vision of a sustainable community. The literature will say that the instigators want broad community input. In reality, the outcome has been decided before the first meeting begins; the real purpose for the process is to "educate" the participants.

The meetings will be conducted by a trained facilitator. A consensus-building meeting is vastly different from a meeting conducted by Robert's Rules of Order. In a consensus-building meeting -- there are no votes. There is no debate. The idea is to avoid conflict and confrontation between and among differing views. The facilitator leads the discussion with questions that are skillfully crafted to elicit no response. Questions are framed to force respondents to disagree with a statement with which most reasonable people would agree. For example, a facilitator might ask: "Is there anyone who would disagree that we have a responsibility to leave future generations sufficient resources to meet their need?" Obviously, no reasonable person can disagree with such a statement. Silence -- no response -- implies that a consensus has been reached on the need to protect resources for future generations. The example is an oversimplification, but it illustrates the technique used by the facilitator.

Despite the careful selection of the participants, the facilitator may encounter an individual who does disagree with the questions. The facilitator is trained to marginalize such an individual by making him or her look silly by asking another, even more extreme question, such as: "Surely you are not telling this group that you feel no responsibility to your grandchildren, are you?" With such tactics, one who objects or disagrees very often is quickly labeled as a trouble-maker and is either ignored or excluded from the group. (See ecologic, March/April, 1997, for a more detailed discussion on techniques).

Eventually, a report will be written by a professional. It will be "The Plan," or the document produced by the group. Regardless of what the group's stated purpose may be, the final document will include language that says the plan is designed to integrate ecology, equity, and the economy; environmental protection, equity, and sustainable development.

The Players

The players -- the instigators -- will include federal, state, and/or local government appointed officials. Working hand-in-hand, there will also be one or more representatives from NGOs that may or may not be recognizable. The Nature Conservancy and the Sierra Club are two of the more active NGOs instigating these stakeholder councils. Frequently, however, a new NGO will be created expressly for the purpose of instigating a stakeholder council in a given community. One or more of the larger NGOs, or an organization such as the Tides Foundation, will supply the start-up money and send a couple of professionals into a community to create an NGO such as "Friends of Hollow Rock, Inc." or something similar. Sometimes an existing local NGO will be used, with substantial financial and leadership help from a larger NGO, or with help from the federal government through one of the many grants that are available for the purpose.

Whenever it is possible, the instigators will recruit a well-known local figure -- a politician, businessman, or landowner -- to be the spokesperson. In Racine, Wisconsin, no less a figure than Samuel C. Johnson, CEO of Johnson Wax Company, was chosen to convince his neighbors that sustainability was the only way to go. Such individuals give credibility to the process and can have enormous persuasive power over local residents.

With such a cast of players, using techniques that are skillful to the point of deception, in a process designed to produce a predetermined outcome, it is little wonder that the objectives of Agenda 21 are being implemented in cities, towns and across the countryside of America. Those who recognize the inherent dangers in allowing non-elected bureaucrats to develop public policy, and those who can see the socialistic underpinnings of a managed society in the objectives of Agenda 21, need to rise to the occasion and meet the challenge as skillfully as it has been launched. Here are some ideas that may be helpful.

Response ideas

There are at least two ways to respond to stakeholder councils: (1) boycott the meetings and protest the result; (2) participate in the meetings and influence the outcome. In some instances, a boycott may be effective in delaying the process. In communities where the public can be reached by radio or newspapers, and the majority of people are informed and aware, the instigators can be marginalized as extremists. Where influential community leaders can be persuaded to join the boycott, the tactic may succeed -- temporarily. Sooner or later, however, the issue of sustainable development in every community will have to be confronted.

The idea of sustainable development is extremely positive and is well received in many communities. Boycott and protest will not be effective in these communities. In fact, such actions would be counter-productive, and reduce the credibility of those who engage in the activity. In these communities, participation is the better course of action.

Advocates of private property rights are not likely to be among those selected to participate in the original meetings. Therefore, advocates must be watchful and tuned-in to any activity that appears to be the beginning of a visioning process or the formation of a stakeholders council. When a meeting is scheduled, advocates should attend -- invited or not. The consensus process is advertised as one which involves all the "stakeholders;" every affected person has a stake in the outcome of the process and is, therefore, entitled to participate.

(For clarity, "advocates" will be used to refer to individuals who advocate private property rights, individual freedom, free markets, and national sovereignty; "proponents" or "instigators" will be used to refer to those who promote sustainable development through the consensus process.)

The first objective of advocates who attend these meetings should be to determine who the players are, and what, exactly, is the purpose of the sessions. Some diplomacy is in order. Direct questions, especially too many questions, too quickly asked, will identify the advocate as a potential trouble maker. The critical questions "who" and "why" should be answered with as little attention as possible drawn to the advocate. Answers can be obtained indirectly. A phone call to the owner of the facility where the meeting is being held can determine who made the arrangement for its use.

A good way to get information about the facilitator is to praise the facilitator, and ask something such as "Where did you get that vast storehouse of knowledge?" Most speakers -- and meeting facilitators -- are suckers for praise, and will babble on for hours about themselves, if given the opportunity. It is an excellent way to learn what might otherwise be impossible to learn.

Once the advocate has a good understanding of the players and the objectives of the meetings, other advocates should be recruited to help influence the outcome. There should be enough advocates in the meeting to support one another and to distribute comments around the room. A single advocate, or even two or three, can easily be marginalized and labeled as trouble makers. If 15 to 20 percent of the group support the views of the advocates, and if the advocates are skillful, the advocates can alter the outcome of the process, and perhaps, take control of the process and instill their own values rather than the values of the instigators.

Early in the meeting process, usually at the first or second meeting, time will be devoted to identifying objectives or goals for the group. This is a critical time for the advocates. They must be present during this period. Objectives usually take several meetings to develop. Even if advocates arrive at the process after it has begun, it is important that they get involved in the development of objectives. Whatever the specific objectives of any group, the underlying principle of integrating environmental protection, equity, and sustainable economic development will be incorporated into the list.

Advocates should insist that the list of objectives include language such as: "promote individual freedom;" and "protect private property rights." There is likely to be little resistance to such language, especially if the advocates use the facilitator's technique and ask "Is there anyone who would disagree that individual freedom and private property rights are among the values we should ensure are available to future generations?" It is not difficult getting such language into the documents developed by consensus. In fact, most of the UN documents, and many of the federal government documents pay lip-service in the language to individual freedom and private property rights. Nevertheless, it will not be included unless it is specifically requested. It is important that the language be included to provide a basis for additional recommendations that come in the next phase.

Taking control

The most important function for the advocates is to ensure that whatever plan or document that is produced by the meeting process, has to be adopted by each and every body of elected officials that may be affected by it. This is the "killer" provision. There will be strong resistance to this provision. It is a provision that essentially negates the purpose of the consensus process and severely impairs the ability of the proponents -- non-elected bureaucrats -- to impose procedures and administrative regulations to advance their agenda. Advocates need to anticipate intense resistance and be prepared to overcome powerful arguments. Some of the arguments advocates will hear include:

• Several jurisdictions are involved; it will take too long and will be too cumbersome to have each elected body approve the plan.
• This is a multi-jurisdictional plan; the purpose is to provide a coordinated vision of an area broader than the jurisdiction of any single political body.
• Pollution, poverty, and economic development do not respect political boundaries; these problems must be addressed on a broader scale.
• The problems we are attempting to solve exist because existing political jurisdictions have been incapable of preventing, or solving them.
• Approval by each and every elected body would, in effect, give veto power over a plan that affects the entire region to each and every elected body.

These are only a few of the very powerful arguments that will be offered to prevent local elected officials from having to approve the plan or document. Advocates need to be prepared to respond and defend their position.

Without question, the most important principle of self-governance enshrined in the Constitution that created our Republic, is the principle of limited government, empowered by the people who are governed. All government authority derives from the consent of the governed. It is the people who empower government by authorizing certain elected officials to administer the authority and power granted to government. The act of voting is the process by which power and authority is transferred from the individual to the elected official. Individuals control their government by controlling the election of those who are authorized to administer government's authority. It is only at the ballot box that government can be held accountable by the individuals who grant government its power.

In view of this exceedingly important reality, any process that allows people to be governed by a policy for which no elected official is directly accountable, aborts the first principle of our Constitution. The consensus process seeks to by-pass elected officials and develop policy through collaboration with "stakeholders," that are affected by it. The Constitution requires citizens to elect officials to make public policy; there is not a word in the Constitution about that responsibility being delegated to "stakeholders."

This is a "no compromise" issue for advocates; it is a "no-compromise" issue for proponents. How the issue is resolved will determine whether a given community continues to enjoy the benefits of the traditional American system of government, or begin a long slide down the slippery slope to managed communities in a society managed by unrestrained government authority.

The consensus process does not vote to resolve issues that are in dispute. If advocates have been able to recruit enough participants to assure a victory, they could insist that a vote be taken. Such a move would effectively destroy the consensus process, and the advocates would have gained control. The planning process could continue, if the proponents chose to do so, but the outcome would be much different from the outcome anticipated at the outset. More likely, there will not be a majority of advocates. So other strategies should be anticipated.

In the real world of consensus-building processes, advocates are in the distinct minority. To force a vote on such a vital issue would be foolish because the issue would then be dead. Using the techniques and processes of the instigators, advocates -- who realize that they are in the minority -- are perfectly within their rights to insist upon a minority report attached to the final document which states their position clearly on the issue of approval by elected officials. That may be as much as advocates can hope for in the consensus-building process, but it provides the basis for the next strategic phase of resistance.

Armed with the minority report that will be included in the final document, advocates should begin a personal campaign to inform and educate each elected official for whom they vote. The case presented to the elected officials should not be about the plan being developed, it should center on the fact that the plan's developers specifically excluded elected officials from exercising their Constitutional authority to approve the plan. Elected officials frequently resent being upstaged or by-passed. Even those officials who support the plan may resent being made irrelevant.

Advocates could develop a model resolution to be presented to the elected body which preempts the authority of the plan being developed. The resolution could cite Constitutional authority for public policy decisions and declare that no plan can be implemented in their city, county or state, whichever may be appropriate, without specific approval of the elected body. The process of educating the elected officials would provide an excellent platform for the education of the community as well. The media would be forced to report what appears to be a developing rift between the authority of elected officials and the authority assumed by non-elected consensus-builders. Care should be taken by advocates to avoid debating the plan, but keep attention focused on the issue of authority for policy making.

Advocates should realize that the preponderance of public opinion is on the side of sustainable development. Arguments against provisions and recommendations within the plan -- as grotesque as some of them may be -- are not likely winnable in the media or in public opinion. Policy-making by non-elected bureaucrats, rather than by accountable elected officials, however, is an argument that is winnable. It is the central issue. If the plan is subject to the approval of elected officials, citizens have the hope of changing or rescinding the plan by electing officials who share the values advocates promote. If the plan is not subject to the approval of elected officials, the plan will be implemented, and incrementally tighten its grip on individual citizens. Individual freedom will continue to diminish; private property rights will continue to erode; free markets will become managed markets; and national sovereignty will sacrificed on the altar of global governance.

- ecologic staff

The American Heritage Rivers Initiative

In his State of the Union Address, President Bill Clinton announced his American Heritage Rivers Initiative, in which he directed his Cabinet to "design an initiative to support communities in their efforts to restore and protect America's rivers." An interagency task force was formed, which included the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Interior, Justice, and Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Corps of Engineers, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The task force convened public meetings in eleven cities during the months of April and May which attracted a total of 690 participants, according to task force estimates. Federal Register notice of the initiative was published May 21, 1997, with comments to be received by June 9, at the Council on Environmental Quality.

"The initiative will create no new regulatory requirements for individuals or state and local government." The purpose of the initiative is to designate, by "Presidential Proclamation," ten rivers in 1997 which will receive special attention from the federal government in the form of (1) "enhanced services and program delivery to designated rivers; and (2) improved delivery of services and information." To implement the two components of the initiative, each designated river will be assigned a "River Navigator" for not more than a five-year term, whose responsibility will be to serve as a one-stop shopping center for all available federal services and benefits related to the designated river communitie(s).

"The Administration believes that a successful initiative will be community-led, flexible, coordinated, broad, partnership-based, and action-oriented." Nominations for designation are to be submitted by the "local community" which may be either local governments or non-government organizations. Nominations will be screened by the interagency task force and recommended to the President who will make the designations. Nominations may consist of a single river community or an entire river or watershed. No more than 15 pages may be submitted in the nomination and must demonstrate compliance with the qualifying criteria:

• Broad Community Support
• Notable Resource Qualities
• Local and Regional Partnership Agreements
• Strategies That Lead to Actions
• Measurable Results

Among the benefits of designation, aside from the prestige of a "Presidential Proclamation," and the appointment of a "River Navigator," the designated rivers "will receive focused support in the form of programs and enhanced services...Individual program services will be simplified and expedited...flexibility from certain bureaucratic requirements in exchange for a commitment to achieve ambitious performance-based goals. The Administration will encourage non-governmental organizations and other partners...to restore, protect, and revitalize American Heritage Rivers...."

"During the first year, federal agencies will focus on improving service and program delivery to the designated river communities, but will also implement methods to improve information access and service delivery to all river communities."

The American Heritage Rivers Initiative is clearly an effort on the part of the Administration to encourage and expedite the implementation of the provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity and of Agenda 21's "Sustainable Communities" objectives. Although not yet ratified by the U.S. Senate, the Convention on Biological Diversity seeks to create a world-wide network of bioregions, using UNESCO's World Biosphere Reserve Network as the nucleus. Each Biosphere Reserve consists of core wilderness areas that are to be connected by corridors of wilderness. Rivers are a natural, and highly prized avenue for corridors of wilderness to connect the core areas. For example, the Conausauga and Ocoee Rivers in Tennessee and Georgia have been targeted by The Nature Conservancy and other NGOs for special designation to connect core wilderness areas within the Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve. The President's American Heritage Rivers Initiative will enhance and expedite the work already in progress in that region.

The initiative will also enhance and expedite the "Sustainable Communities" objectives of Agenda 21 in river communities. By holding out the carrot of federal funding assistance and "flexibility" in regulatory compliance, river communities are expected to be enticed into the snare of "commitments to achieve ambitious performance-based goals."

While assuring Congress and the American public that "no new regulatory requirements"

will be imposed, the federal government will avoid Congressional and public scrutiny of administrative policies which seek to achieve objectives established in the international community, that far exceed the legislative mandates for which those regulatory policies were authorized.

Finally, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative is another example of government by Presidential Proclamation, rather than government by, of, and for the people. Neither the sustainable communities initiative, nor the American Heritage Rivers Initiative are the result of a demand by local citizens. Instead, both are the result of United Nations declarations imposed in America by Executive Order and Presidential Proclamation. Private citizens, and the United States Congress still have the authority to limit Presidential power, though the political will to do so has not yet been demonstrated.

- ecologic staff

The La Paz Agreement:
Border Region XXI

What began as an agreement between the United States and Mexico, known as the La Paz Agreement, to improve the environment in the border area between the two countries, was swallowed up by a new, 1993 agreement resulting from negotiations surrounding the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The new agreement creates the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American Development Bank (NADBank) which constitutes a project called Border Region XXI. President Clinton issued an Executive Order in May, 1994, which says:

"The Agreement shall also be implemented to advance sustainable development, pollution prevention, environmental justice, ecosystem protection, and biodiversity preservation...."¹

The Executive Order designates the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of State, and the Administrator of the EPA as members of the Board of Directors of NADBank. The Administrator of the EPA and the U.S. Commissioner for the International Boundary and Water Commission are designated to the board of the BECC.

The Border Region defined by the agreement is 100 kilometers (62 miles) wide, on each side of the U.S.-Mexican border, which stretches 2000 miles from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. The purpose for the agreement is to address development/environmental problems that have arisen as the result of "unplanned settlements." The problems arise, according to a Congressional Research Service Report, as the result of "two significant market failures: the existence of negative externalities...and inadequate public goods investment."

These two terms may be meaningless to most Americans, but they are frequently used in UN literature. Negative externalities means the costs to the environment of production which are not included in the price of the goods produced. Public goods investment refers to improvements to the "global commons" made from the investment of tax dollars. In other words, the problems have arisen because the free market system fails to adequately "account" for environmental costs, and the free market system fails to invest adequately in the global commons for the common good. This language runs rampant through Agenda 21, the Global Biodiversity Assessment, and other United Nations documents. The idea of free market failure is stressed in the Congressional Research Service Report:

"Inherent in recognizing that environmental problems are a direct result of economic activity is the idea that undeterred polluting is the sign of a market economy not fully incorporating the "social costs" of conducting business.... Without government intervention, society as a whole must bear the cost of pollution and the social cost of production remains higher than the private cost incurred by business, leading to relatively higher levels of output and pollution, as readily observed in the border region."²

The Border Region Agreement is said to be a negotiated solution to the problem of "externalities."

NADBank was created to generate funding for the "environmental infrastructure" projects certified by the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC). Both Mexico and the U.S. will deposit $225 million over 4 years, and subscribe an additional $1.5 billion in capital stock. The $3 billion in capital stock is called callable capital. Because of the guarantee implied by the callable capital, the $450 million "paid-in" capital can be leveraged to generate 6.5 times its value in environmental infrastructure construction projects. BECC's purpose, is "to help preserve, protect and enhance the environment of the border region in order to advance the well-being of the people of the United States and Mexico." BECC is the primary coordinating agency and its function is to certify projects in the area for funding.

The authority to approve or disapprove funds for construction projects gives the BECC substantial control over what will and will not occur in the border region. BECC's board consists of five members from each country. The President appointed the Chair of the Texas State Parks and Wildlife Commission, the Deputy Director of the City of San Diego Division of Water Utilities, and the Director of Radiation, Toxics and Health Project, Southwest Research and Information Center in Albuquerque. BECC maintains a staff and headquarters in Cuidad Juarez.

Projects are reviewed by an 18-member Advisory Council, consisting of representatives of NGOs and state agencies. The Advisory Council functions as a built-in "visioning council" for the border region. The boards of directors of both NADBank and BECC are more symbolic than functional, since each member is a full-time official with full-time responsibilities elsewhere. Consequently, the BECC Advisory Council, and the BECC staff have extraordinary latitude to envision, plan, and recommend funding for environmental infrastructure projects to convert the border region into a sustainable bioregion. NADBank funds may be used only for two purposes:

Environmental infrastructure projects; and community adjustment assistance (up to 10 percent of capital). Communities that have been adversely impacted by NAFTA are eligible for the community adjustment assistance money, if approved by BECC.

Existing problems in the border region "derive in varying degrees from policies and actions, or lack thereof, involving all levels of government and the private sector."³ Both free markets and existing governments have failed; BECC has been created by international agreement (NAFTA) as an instrument of governance to provide enlightened leadership and administration of sustainable development throughout an international border zone 2000 miles long and 124 miles wide.

In the midst of the border region lies the UN Sonoran Desert Biosphere Reserve. Governor Fife Symington of Arizona, and Governor Manlio Fabio Beltrones, of Sonora, Mexico, have both endorsed a proposal to expand the Biosphere Reserve to create a network of protected areas that links El Pinacate y el Gran Desierto de Altar Biosphere Reserve (1,800,000 acres), Alto Golfo de California y Delta del Rio Colorado Biosphere Reserve (700,000 acres), Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (865,000 acres), Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Biosphere Reserve (330,000 acres), Tinajas Altas (BLM 53,000 acres), Gran Desierto Dunes (BLM 25,500 acres), and Mohawk Mountains and Dunes (BLM 113,000 acres). A total of 3.8+ million acres are now included in the growing bioregion.⁴ "The Network promotes an integrated program which protects cultural values, promotes sustainable community and economic development in the region, and promotes cooperation between the contiguous protected areas on both sides of the border so as to motivate collaborative resource management of the region's shared resources," according to the U.S. MAB Bulletin, (MAB = Man and the Biosphere).

Border Region XXI provides a case study of global governance in action. The idea, philosophy, approach, and process come directly from the pages of Agenda 21. The project was initiated and is being implemented by the authority of the federal government -- without Congressional involvement -- and with the blessing of local governments. The EPA released U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program Executive Summary, in October, 1996. The summary boasts that the project will provide "proper management" of the region to achieve "sustainable development" which is defined as "meet[ing] the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" -- directly from the Brundtland Commission's 1987 Our Common Future, and reaffirmed in Sustainable America: A New Consensus. The summary says that the program will "link budget process and programmatic management to specific results through environmental performance measures. The two governments will provide the public information on specific Border XXI performance measures as they are developed."

Implementation will occur through nine binational working groups which are designed to be "stakeholder councils" programmed to work on specific issues such as water, air, hazardous and solid waste, natural resources, and environmental information resources. The working groups, or stakeholder councils, consist of appointed agency officials, NGO representatives, and other selected individuals to give the appearance of broad community involvement. The objectives of the stakeholder councils include: protection of biodiversity and expansion of protected areas; forest and soil conservation, i.e. discouraging the use and consumption of certain flora, providing tax incentives, and restricting road construction and urban sprawl and erosion of susceptible areas; and improving binational law enforcement through strengthening mechanisms for regulatory compliance.⁵

Here is the framework and structure of global governance in the border region. The transboundary geographic area has been established by administrative agreement, without a vote of the affected citizens. A superstructure of governance has been created, consisting of appointed individuals, to nine "stakeholder councils" that function within the context of predetermined objectives developed in the international community and defined in Agenda 21; working to develop an integrated plan for the entire bioregion consisting of "environmental infrastructure projects" that must be approved by another appointed council (BECC) for funding, with tax dollars, by a specialized financial institution (NADBank) whose appointed board is accountable to no one except the President who appointed them.

This structure effectively removes the policy-making function from local elected officials while still involving them in the process as participants in stakeholder councils. By supplying money for projects that would otherwise be beyond the capability of local governments, state and local officials are enticed to accept the new structure. Local citizens, except those chosen to participate in a stakeholder council, or granted the privilege of participating in a consensus-building process, are completely bypassed in the process, subjected to the outcome, and left with virtually no recourse.

This structure is precisely the mechanism that removes ultimate political authority from the people, and places it in the hands of the institutions of governance. Ultimate political authority is, in fact, the ability to remove from power, those who make and enforce public policy. In America, until now, that ultimate authority has rested with the voters. In the new structure of governance, the ability to make and enforce public policy is being removed from elected officials and placed in the hands of appointed officials who are beyond the reach of voters. The various stakeholder councils and other appointed policy making bodies are heavily influenced, if not dominated, by NGOs that are directly or indirectly connected to national and international NGOs that are directly involved with the development, adoption, and implementation of policies at the national and international level. This is the essence of global governance.

- ecologic staff

Endnotes

1. Congressional Research Service Report 95-184ENR, "Border Environment Cooperation Commission and North American Development Bank: Background and Issues," January 20, 1995, p. CRS-2.

2. Ibid, p. CRS-12.

3. Ibid. p. CRS-31.

4. "Arizona Governor endorses Sonoran Desert Biosphere," U.S.. MAB Bulletin, March, 1997, Volume 21, Number 1, as reported in ecologic, March/April, 1997, p. 25.

5. U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program Executive Summary, EPA 160-S-96-001, October, 1996, p. 3.

Is Washington waking up?

Barely two years ago, the only place in Washington that the UN could be safely criticized was in the office of Senator Jesse Helms or Congressman John Scarborough. Now, there are at least four bills pending that directly challenge the growing influence of the United Nations. Don Young's American Land Sovereignty Protection Act (HR901) was introduced in the 104^th Congress, and garnered 246 votes. This bill, which would simply require congressional approval before American land could be designated by the UN, has been the catalyst for educating Congressmen about the activities of the various UN agencies. Two other extremely significant bills are now under consideration.

Senators who have endorsed the Climate Change Resolution
Abraham Ailard Ashcroft Bennett Bond Boxer Breaux Brownback Burns Byrd Cleland Cochran Conrad Coverdell Craig DeWine Domenici Dorgan Durban Enzi Faircloth Ford Frist Glenn Gorton Gramm Grams Grassley	Hagel Hatch Helms Hollings Hutchinson Hutchison Inhofe Inouye Johnson Kempthorne Landrieu Levin Lott McConnell Mikulski Moseley-Braun Murkowski Nickles Roberts Rockefeller Santorum Sessions Shelby Smith (NH) Smith (OR) Stevens Thomas Thurmond Warner

In the Senate, a resolution is circulating that expresses the "Sense of the Senate" regarding the anticipated Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change. The resolution says:

"The Senate strongly believes that the United States should not be a signatory to any agreement that would result in serious harm to the United States economy, including significant job loss, trade disadvantages, and increased energy and consumer costs."

Additionally, the resolution calls for six specific conditions that must be met before the Senate could support the protocol.

The resolution has no legal force, but it does send a clear message to the administration that many Senators are concerned about the protocol now under negotiation. Concern, however, is not opposition. As was demonstrated by the recent ratification of the Chemical Weapons Ban Treaty, concern, even strong opposition, can be medicated with sufficient political ointment. What the Senators failed to realize -- or ignored -- when they ratified the Chemical Weapons Ban Treaty, is the fact that the treaty itself prohibits any reservations. That means that should a dispute arise about the treaty's implementation, the language of the treaty will prevail -- regardless of any negotiated agreements reached between the Democrats and Republicans. The Climate Change Treaty also prohibits reservations. The Senate and the administration can attach all the conditions or reservations they wish to the ratification instrument, but they will be meaningless when it comes to implementation and enforcement. The reservations and conditions are little more than an exercise in public relations to appease those individuals and organizations that offer opposition. Nevertheless, the Senators who have endorsed the resolution demonstrate that the Congress is developing a growing sensitivity to the actions of the United Nations.

Congressmen who voted to withdraw from the United Nations
Anderholt Barr Bartlett Bonilla Buron Chenoweth Coburn Combest Crane Crapo Cubin Cunningham DeLay Dickey Doolittle Duncan Ensign Everett Foley Gibbons Hall (TX) Hefley Hulshof Hunter Istook Johnson, Sam Jones	Kingston Largent Linder Lucas Manzullo McIntosh Moran (KS) Nethercutt Ney Paul Pombo Riley Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Ryun Salmon Scarborough Schaefer, Dan Schaffer, Bob Sessions Shadegg Solomon Stump Taylor (MS) Wamp Weldon (FL) Young (AK)

On the House side, Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth has taken a major step to further clarify the relationship of the United States to the United Nations. She has introduced a Joint Resolution (HJRES83), a Constitutional amendment, that would, once-and-for-all, end the so-called supremacy clause controversy. The proposed amendment would nullify any treaty which "denies or abridges any right" enumerated in the Constitution. It would forbid any treaty to abridge the "legislative authority of any state." It would forbid "any foreign power or any international organization to supervise, control, or adjudicate rights of citizens of the United States...." This amendment could destroy the UN's primary enforcement mechanism -- the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO has the power to resolve disputes administratively and to impose its decisions upon nations and upon industries within nations through trade sanctions. The Chenoweth amendment would disallow the authority of the WTO in the United States. It is unlikely that other nations would remain bound by WTO decisions if the United States were not.

Section 4 of the proposed amendment would eliminate what is called "self-executing" treaties by requiring specific enabling legislation for every treaty. Perhaps more important is Section 5, which would elevate "Executive Agreements" to the status of treaties and subject them to the advise and consent provisions of the Constitution and the provisions of the amendment. Executive Agreements have become a popular tool of recent administrations to bypass Congress altogether. The Chenoweth amendment would bring this practice to an abrupt halt.

A similar amendment was offered in 1953 by Senator John Bricker (R-OH 1946-1958). The amendment won a majority of votes, but not the required two-thirds. The Chenoweth amendment will also meet stiff opposition from the administration and others who fully support the momentum building toward global governance. The introduction of the resolution, however, is another indication that there is a growing concern about the growing power of the United Nations.

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) has upstaged both Jesse Helms and John Scarborough as the most eloquent defender of national sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution. His bill to withdraw from the UN -- and force the UN to withdraw from the United States -- was attached as an amendment to a recent foreign relations bill. Fifty-four Congressmen went on the record in support of total, immediate withdrawal from the UN. Speaker after speaker rose to oppose the amendment. It is significant that most of the speakers acknowledged a variety of problems with the UN, and expressed support for UN reform, but felt that even a flawed UN was better than no UN.

Substantial progress has been made in the last two years toward informing both the Congress and the public as to the real and potential threats that confront the U.S. Constitution and the American form of government. Despite recent gains, the time is short and the opposition is formidable. Every Congressman should be aware of the feelings of every constituent before these important measures come to a final vote.

Treaties scheduled to be ratified

Convention on Biological Diversity

This treaty was removed from the calendar in the waning days of the 103^rd Congress when the Senate was controlled by the Democrats. It was removed when then-Senate Majority Leader, George Mitchell (D-ME) realized that there were not enough votes to ratify. Not to be defeated, this treaty is once again on the administration's "priority" list for ratification. The treaty has not improved. Despite having been ratified by nearly 130 nations, it still contains the provisions which spelled its demise last time around. Like most treaties, the language is vague and ambiguous. For example, Article 8 simply calls for a system of protected areas. What is meant by a system of protected areas becomes clear only in Section 13 of the Global Biodiversity Assessment, an 1140 page document developed by the UN Environment Program, in which the Wildlands Project is identified as the central theme of protected areas. That document calls for converting "at least half" of North America to core wilderness areas off limits to human beings, connecting those core areas with corridors of wilderness, surrounded by buffer zones to be managed by government in collaboration with stakeholder councils, and eventually creating a matrix of wilderness areas that surround islands of human habitat. Nowhere is there any discussion of private property owners whose land lies within the boundaries of what the UN decides should be wilderness.

Framework Convention on Climate Change (Protocol)

This treaty was ratified in October, 1992, another product of the Rio Earth Summit II. The original language of the treaty requires voluntary efforts by 34 designated nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The Conference of the Parties (COP) to this Convention held its first meeting in Berlin in 1995 and decided that the developed nations would not meet the target. They therefore, adopted the "Berlin Mandate" which says that the COP will adopt a legally binding protocol to the treaty by 1997. The protocol will be binding upon only the designated 34 developed countries. The rest of the world, including 131 other nations that have ratified the treaty, are not bound to emissions reductions. The protocol has been under negotiation and development since 1995. Bill Clinton, and Timothy Wirth, Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs, have both declared publicly that such a protocol is necessary to prevent global warming. Neither has produced any kind of cost analysis or economic impact assessment of the reduction of fossil-fuel energy use by as much as 50%. Independent analyses have been developed. Assuming the least demanding proposal now on the table is adopted, the economic impact would be in the range of $240 billion per year, approximately $1,000 per person. Carbon taxes are seen to be the most effective tool available to force people to stop using gasoline and coal-fired electricity. The protocol is being designed to end the use of fossil fuel, and through tax-based subsidies, force people into electric cars and into solar homes. The protocol will have to be ratified by the Senate and is expected to arrive early in 1998.

Convention on the Rights of the Child

Although circulated since the early 1990s, the treaty has again been placed on the high priority list of the U.S. State Department. The U.S. is only one of 8 original signers that has not yet ratified the treaty. Among the many problems with this treaty, is the shift of ultimate responsibility for child-rearing to the government -- under the auspices of the United Nations. While paying politically correct lip-service to the rights and responsibilities of parents, there can be no doubt the state is expected to set the standards for education, religion, and care of children. Under the treaty, children cannot be denied the right to associate with whomever they choose. The cannot be denied free access to information (including pornography) or anything else they wish to view. Parents must maintain a standard of living that the state defines, and if not, the state is required to provide that standard. This treaty sets in place the legal authority for the state to take over the raising of future generations that is so vividly discussed in UNECSO's early journals. This treaty authorizes a global village to raise all the children.

Convention on the Law of the Seas

This treaty, 20 years in negotiation, started out as a treaty to govern traffic on the high seas. It turned out to be something totally different. It sets into international law two of the most onerous principles imaginable to Constitution-loving Americans: a global commons; and a global taxing authority. The treaty creates the International Seabed Authority and empowers it to require a permit of any company wishing to engage in mining the seabed. Originally, the permit cost was $500,000, but the Clinton Administration skillfully negotiated a reduction to $250,000. Companies that wish to engage in such activity must also file a business plan that must be approved by the UN agency, and agree to pay royalties to the UN for whatever is produced. Since most Americans will never mine the seabed, little attention has been paid to this treaty. It is, however, the camel's nose under the tent. The report of the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance, has recommended that the global commons be defined not simply as "non-territorial seas," but should also include outer space, the atmosphere, and the environment and life-support systems that support human life. Additional recommendations call for UN taxes on transnational transportation, parking fees for geostationary satellites, and licensing for multinational corporations.

Convention on Desertification

This treaty went into effect December 26, 1996. It has not been ratified by the Senate, but last fall, more than 90 environmental organizations were invited to Washington for a strategy session on how to get the treaty ratified. It, too, is one which has been listed as high priority by the State Department. The language sounds as if intends to reverse massive desertification caused by greedy humans who are destroying biodiversity and impoverishing the planet. More careful reading reveals that it is designed to impose control on any land that may not fall under the jurisdiction of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Water, of course, is a major focus of this treaty, and its use is to be regulated by the state under the auspices of the international treaty.

Convention on the Elimination of all forms of
Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)

Although not on the official high-priority list, this treaty has also been floating around for years and is expected to be advanced in the wake of positive reaction to other treaties. Similar to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, this treaty seeks to grant a bounty of rights to women. The right to housing, for example, and the right to refuse to do more than half of the housework, and the right to be employed where the law requires a 50-50 balance between men and women -- regardless of what the work requirement may be-- are some of the provisions of this treaty. It is advanced by many feminist organizations, particularly by Bella Abzug's Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO).

Coming Attractions

There are at least two additional Conventions being developed which are not yet ready for presentation. One is the Convention on Sustainable Development, and the other is the Convention on Food Security. Realizing that it might take years to develop the Convention on Sustainable Development, Maurice Strong, then-Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio, created a new NGO (non-government organization) called Earth Council. The purpose of this organization was to encourage nations to create a Council on Sustainable Development and begin implementing the provisions of Agenda 21 in their respective nations without waiting for a formal treaty. Bill Clinton, along with more than 100 other heads-of-state, obliged. The President's Council on Sustainable Development was formed by Executive Order in 1993, was reauthorized in 1996, and has issued its first report called Sustainable America: A new Consensus. The report sets forth 154 action items to create "sustainable communities" which will be home for the people who are dislocated from the core wilderness areas and buffer zones required by the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The Convention on Food Security will likely follow the document adopted by the World Food Summit in Rome last November. It calls for the declaration of the right for every person in the world to have a full stomach, every day, filled with food selected by the individual. The primary method to be used to achieve this staggering feat is the transfer of wealth from the developed countries to the developing countries. The document reads very much like a global welfare program funded by American taxpayers.

- ecologic staff

The Gray Ranch

A case study in global governance

The largest land deal in the history of America, if not the world, occurred January 29, 1990, when The Nature Conservancy (TNC) bought the Gray Ranch from Mexican billionaire, Pablo Brener, for $18 million. Half the size of Rhode Island, the ranch stretches 502 square miles (552,000 acres) across the New Mexico bootheel, encompassing the Animas Valley and the Animas Mountain Range. Observers assumed that the land would be resold to the federal government, as The Nature Conservancy had done many times before. A similar acquisition 100 miles west of the Gray Ranch had been sold to the government and became the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area.

Not so for the Gray Ranch. Even though the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) had already selected a name for it -- the Animas National Wildlife Refuge -- local opposition to federal acquisition quashed the resale, and the Nature Conservancy had to sit on the property. But not for long.

TNC bought the property as a part of its program to preserve America's "Last Great Places." The USFWS claims that the ranch contains more species of mammals than Yellowstone, Glacier, Yosemite, "or any other national park or refuge in the conterminous United States." In all, some 270 species of vertebrates were said to live on the ranch, along with countless species of flora and dozens of unexplored archeological sites.

John Cook, then-vice president of TNC, began looking for a private owner who could buy the land, but who would also agree to land management practices determined by TNC. Drummond Hadley was the right person. Hadley owned a ranch in nearby Guadalupe Canyon. Hadley had walked away from his family's business -- Anheuser Busch -- in the 1960s to become a "spiritual seeker," choosing Mexico for his adventure. Upon returning to the United States, he settled on his New Mexico ranch to practice the wisdom he had learned on his quest.

To swing the deal, Hadley, his son, Seth, and his mother, Puddie, pooled their inheritances to form the Animas Foundation, a not-for-profit corporation, which actually took title to the ranch from TNC. TNC retained significant "Land Use Easements." John Cook said:

"We sold it to an institution with a charter, a board of trustees and nonprofit status -- an institution that has agreed to own the ranch forever, to never let it be developed and to continue a very extensive monitoring program in perpetuity to ensure that the Conservancy's goals are being met."

As big as the Gray Ranch is, it is only about half of a million-acre ecosystem that, according to some, should not be further fragmented by private owners. Since most of the area surrounding the Gray Ranch is privately controlled, TNC had to find new, creative mechanisms to prevent private owners from disposing of, or using their land in ways that might not be consistent with TNC's grand scheme of things.

A new organization was formed: The Malpai Borderlands Group (MBG). The group is supposed to be a "partnership" among local landowners, seeking to achieve common objectives. Judy Keeler, a local rancher, reported in the local press that John Cook, of the Nature Conservancy, and Bill McDonald, a director of the Animas Foundation, are co-executive directors of the Malpai Borderlands Group. She reported that other directors and staff of the MBG are either current or recent employees or directors of TNC, including Ben Brown, executive director of the Animas Foundation, Bill Weeks, Kelly Cash, and Michael Dennis. The organization created to be a "stakeholder" group of local concerned citizens and property owners, is in reality an instrument of the TNC.

The MBG (a.k.a. TNC) uses grass to get neighbors of the Gray Ranch to conform to their land use vision. Grass is not always plentiful in the New Mexico deserts. The Gray Ranch, however, which has more land than cows, and need not produce a dime, has plenty of grass. So the MBG created a "Grassbank Lease Agreement," in which neighboring ranchers would be allowed to let their livestock graze the lush pastures of the Gray Ranch in exchange for a Land Use Easement. The Easement document says that the signer, "his heirs, personal representatives, transferees, grantees, and successors in interest, and any future owners of fee title," grant to the Animas Foundation and the MBG "a Land Use Easement." The purpose of the easement is to:

"preserve and protect in perpetuity the natural, ecological, archeological and scenic features and values of the Fee Land and to prevent any use of the Fee Land that will significantly impair or interfere with the conservation values of the Fee Land."

The Easement prohibits construction of new homes, except for the owner's heirs, and requires that such construction be "of modest size" and that the design not "detract nor obtrude on the overall landscape." The Easement also prohibits the "filling, dumping, and removal of soil...the manipulation, degradation, pollution or alteration of natural water courses...the conversion of vegetation, or the introduction of exotic or non-native species...."

In exchange for grass, ranchers turn over the management of their own land -- forever -- to The Nature Conservancy.

The Gray Ranch provides an excellent example of how The Nature Conservancy, and many other environmental organizations, are working on the ground to implement the provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity, even though the Convention has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate. The Nature Conservancy is an important member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) which first proposed the Convention on Biological Diversity in the early 1980s. Further evidence is provided in the comments of the Animas Foundation filed in response to the Department of Interior's Rangeland Reform proposal issued August 9, 1993.

The comments, prepared by John Cook, said "we strongly support the move to a policy of ecosystem management." Among the concerns listed by Cook, were: "fragmentation of whole ecosystems, and global climate change." These concerns and the language are hardly the words of a local citizens group; they are, in fact, the concerns and the language expressed in the Global Biodiversity Assessment, produced by the United Nations Environment Program, expressly for those who are concerned with the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The Nature Conservancy is not working in a vacuum. The Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the USFWS, and the New Mexico and Arizona Game and Fish agencies are all working cooperatively to implement "ecosystem management" as prescribed by the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Arizona Game and Fish Department has facilitated the creation of nine area "committees" such as the Kingman Habitat Partnership Committee, whose mission statement includes this:

"We are committed to protecting the quality of life and natural heritage, by promoting and maintaining large tracts of inter-connected habitat areas and open space, free of urbanization, producing diverse and healthy ecosystems with abundant plant and animal communities...."

Wilderness areas, connected by corridors, and surrounded by buffer zones, are the hallmark of the Wildlands Project, which is said to be "central" to the land management practices required by Article 8 of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Management of the land and lives of people who live in the borderland region of New Mexico is tied to the United Nations even more directly. In addition to the Border XXI Project (see page 19), the United States has created a "Trilateral Committee" to "facilitate the conservation of species and the ecosystems on which they depend." The committee was created through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, April 9, 1996. Among the authorities cited for the Agreement are these international treaties:

• 1916 Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds;
• 1936 Treaty for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals;
• 1940 Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere;
• 1971 Conventio n on Wetlands of International Importance (RAMSAR);
• 1973 Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES);
• 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity;
• 1993 North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation.

The three governments, working through appointed staff, are authorized by the MOU to "Develop, implement, review, and coordinate specific cooperative conservation projects and programs, and any other functions that the Parties may agree upon."

Congress, state legislatures, and local elected officials have been bypassed altogether and effectively rendered irrelevant. The land management policies of the United Nations are being implemented across the nation in much the same way they are being implemented on and around the Gray Ranch. Non-government organizations, such as The Nature Conservancy, are being used by federal agencies to implement policies that might not survive the normal policy-making process of Congressional debate and public, recorded votes. The process used in New Mexico is the essence of global governance.

- ecologic staff

Gore versus the automobile

"Eliminating the internal combustion engine"

By Alan Caruba

In June 1997, Vice President Al Gore, Jr., was in New Hampshire, gearing up for his run for the Presidency in 2000. Despite revelations that he had engaged in questionable fund-raising practices during the 1996 campaign, along with other questions of truthfulness on other issues, he was back on track with his message about the environment.

What he didn't tell his audiences was that he advocates the goal of "completely eliminating the internal combustion engine" by the time their kids are ready to go to college or, if possible, sooner.

In case you're unfamiliar with this particular kind of engine, it powers every automobile, van, truck, motorcycle, snowmobile, tractor, and other agricultural vehicles, fishing and recreational boats, and various aircraft in America. It's also widely used to power lawn mowers and countless other labor-saving devices.

"We now know that their cumulative impact on the global environment is posing a mortal threat to the security of every nation that is more deadly than that of any military enemy we are ever again likely to confront." One cannot invent such utterly irrational statements. This is drawn directly from Gore's bestseller, Earth in the Balance.

If Al Gore becomes President of the United States of America, mind boggling radical changes could be imposed on everyone's life, backed up by the coercive power of the federal government. Many changes, of course, are already in effect. Fully one third of all federal laws and regulations are devoted to environmental mandates, estimated to be costing billions of dollars annually.

The impact of al Gore's views on current domestic and foreign policy goes largely unnoticed. In April, it was announced that the United States will open offices in twelve countries to tackle "regional environmental problems as part of a new green slant to its foreign policy."

The announcement, from the State Department, was part of its "first annual report on world ecological problems." Gore called it a "turning point in U.S. foreign policy." He's right. Among the problems the Clinton Administration will focus its diplomatic powers upon include "climate change, toxic chemicals, species extinction, deforestation, and marine degradation." In December 1997 the U.S. will press for "clear, common and enforceable targets for greenhouse gas emissions."

Want to know what life will be like if the internal combustion engine is eliminated? Try to imagine what life was like after the Civil War. In 1865, there were no automobiles, no tractors, no refrigerators, no modern drugs. Except for trains, virtually nothing we take for granted as part of modern life existed.

There is no global warming. We're not running out of natural resources. Global environmental problems do not require a huge command and control United Nations bureaucracy. Millions are dying from diseases or starvation which pesticides and other beneficial chemicals could deter. Simply stated, Gore and the inner core of the environmental movement he's embraced, have been engaged in a massive campaign of lies aimed at convincing Americans and others around the world that the earth is doomed and the cause of this apocalypse is none other than the human race.

"Industrialization" has become the buzz word among radical environmentalists like Gore, who say they believe we're imperiling the earth. "And perhaps the most sluggish of all, after our political system, is our system of economics," says Gore, identifying the real deterrent to saving the earth.

Think about that! Our political system, representative Democracy, is part of the problem, but worse, says Gore, is our economic system, Capitalism. This is what the leading Democratic Party candidate for the Presidency in 2000 believes. "One doesn't have to travel around the world to witness humankind's assault on the earth," says Gore.

To put things into perspective, the earth is estimated to be five billion years old. Every day, somewhere on earth, humans must deal with floods, blizzards, hurricanes, tornadoes, lightning, volcanoes, and earthquakes. These are natural phenomenon. A single hurricane represents more raw power than the combined activities of all humankind.

If Gore is elected President, Americans will find themselves unwitting accomplices to the destruction of their national sovereignty and the key element of the U.S. Constitution which protects their property while serving as the basis for our entire economic system.

The automobile and its use of petroleum products is just the tip of the iceberg. This is not about an assault by humans on nature. It is an assault by a national and international network of environmental organizations on technological and lifestyle advances enjoyed by humans around the world. It is an assault on Democracy. It is an assault on national sovereignty. It is an assault on Capitalism.

The next time you hear Al Gore talk about the environment, ask yourself whether all technological advances and everything that Americans throughout history have fought and died for isn't under assault?.

(Alan Caruba is veteran science and business writer and is the founder of
the National Anxiety Center, Maplewood, New Jersey, a clearinghouse for information about scare campaigns.)

TOP | HOME