By Steve Van Nattan
Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement Programs
Purchase of agricultural conservation easement programs pay farmers to protect their land from development. PACE is known by a variety of other terms, the most common being purchase of development rights. Landowners sell agricultural conservation easements to a government agency or private conservation organization. The agency or organization usually pays them the difference between the value of the land for agriculture and the value of the land for its "highest and best use," which is generally residential or commercial development. Easement value is most often determined by professional appraisals, but may also be established through the use of a numerical scoring system which evaluates the suitability for agriculture of a piece of property.
State and local governments can play a variety of roles in the creation and implementation of PACE programs. Some states have passed legislation that allows local governments to create PACE programs. Others have enacted PACE programs that are implemented, funded and administered by state agencies. Several states work cooperatively with local governments to purchase easements. A few states have appropriated money for use by local governments and private nonprofit organizations. Finally, some local governments have created independent PACE programs in the absence of any state action.
Cooperative state-local PACE programs have some advantages over independent state or local programs. Cooperative programs allow states to set broad policies and criteria for protecting agricultural land, while county or township governments select the farms that they believe are most critical to the viability of local agricultural economies, and monitor the land once the easements are in place. Involving two levels of government generally increases the funding available for PACE. Finally, cooperative programs increase local government investment in farmland protection.
PACE programs allow farmers to cash in a fair percentage of the equity in their land, thus creating a financially competitive alternative to selling land for non-agricultural uses. Permanent easements prevent development that would effectively foreclose he possibility of farming. Removing the development potential from farmland generally reduces its future market value. This may help facilitate farm transfer to the children of farmers and make the land more affordable to beginning farmers and others who want to buy it for agricultural purposes. PACE provides landowners with liquid capital that can enhance the economic viability of individual farming operations and help perpetuate family tenure on the land. Finally, PACE gives communities a way to share t he costs of protecting agricultural land with farmers.
Competition for land is only one of the problems facing farmers and ranchers. Financial problems and the burden of complying with regulations are also significant challenges for commercial agricultural operations. Most farmers say the best way to protect farmland is to keep farming profitable. State and local governments have created a variety of marketing programs to support and enhance the economics of agriculture. Several states and a few local governments have developed programs that compensate farmers for protecting natural resources.
Transfer of Development Rights
Transfer of development rights programs allow landowners to transfer the right to develop one parcel of land to a different parcel of land. Generally established through local zoning ordinances, TDR programs can protect farmland by shifting development from agricultural areas to areas planned for growth. When the development rights are transferred from a piece of property, the land is restricted with a permanent agricultural conservation easement. Buying development rights generally allows landowners to build at a higher density than ordinarily permitted by the base zoning. TDR is known as transfer of development credits in California and in some regions of New Jersey.
TDR is used by counties, cities, towns and townships. Two regional TDR programs for farmland protection were developed to protect New Jersey's Pinelands and the pine barrens of Long Island, N.Y. TDR programs are distinct from PACE programs because they involve the private market. Most TDR transactions are between private landowners and developers. Local governments approve transactions and monitor easements. A few jurisdictions have created "TDR banks" that buy development rights with public funds and sell them to developers and other private landowners.
Helen Pelzman, ext. 3029
Shannon Weller, ext. 3032
In Columbus: Kevin Schmidt, 614/469-9877
American Farmland Trust Opens New Ohio Office To Address State's
Increasing Loss Of Productive Farmland
Columbus, Ohio, November 4, 1997 -- Responding to the recommendations outlined in Governor George Voinovich's Ohio Farmland Preservation Task Force, American Farmland Trust, the nation's leading farmland conservation group, today announced the opening of its Ohio office and the appointment of Kevin Schmidt as Ohio field representative to spearhead a series of strong, new farmland conservation initiatives in the state.
With the release of its groundbreaking 1997 report, Farming on the Edge, AFT identified the Eastern Ohio Till Plain, the northeastern part of the state, as the seventh most threatened agricultural region in the nation. Between 1982 and 1992, Ohio already had lost 281,000 acres of prime and unique farmland to development.
The new office is housed in the Natural Resources Conservation Service state headquarters in Columbus. Pat Wolf, NRCS state conservationist, said, "We feel fortunate to have the opportunity to work cooperatively with AFT. As NRCS provides technical assistance throughout Ohio, this partnership will help us further focus on the issue of farmland protection."
"Having an Ohio office enables us to expand our efforts to protect the state's valuable farmland resources," said Bob Wagner, AFT's director of field programs. "With Kevin on board, we now can respond far more quickly and efficiently to Ohio's needs."
Building upon AFT's leadership role with the governor's task force, Wagner said that as AFT's Ohio field representative, Schmidt will:
Provide information, advice and technical assistance in addressing farmland protection issues.
Help shape statewide policy.
Develop on-site demonstration projects in partnership with local entities and individuals.
Work with communities to establish local farmland protection programs.
In addition to the office opening, AFT just released Saving American Farmland: What Works, the definitive guidebook on farmland protection tools and techniques. Designed for policymakers, planners, community organizations and concerned citizens, the guidebook is available by calling (800) 370-4879. The price is $34.95.
Before joining AFT, Schmidt had been a research assistant for the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy in Queenstown, Md. In this capacity, he developed strategic approaches to protect farmland and provided recommendations for a refocused conservation effort in the region. Schmidt holds a bachelor's degree in political science from Le Moyne College in Syracuse, N.Y., and a master's degree in public management from University of Maryland, College Park.
AFT's Ohio office is located at 200 North High St., Room 522, Columbus, Ohio, 43215. Schmidt can be reached at (614) 469-9877; his fax number is (614) 469-2083.
Saratoga Springs, N.Y., May 5, 1997 -- An historic tract of land across the Hudson River from the Saratoga Battlefield National Park in upstate New York which once had been slated for a nuclear power plant has been permanently recovered for agricultural and recreational uses.
The Beaverkill Conservancy, an affiliate of the Open Space Institute, a New York nonprofit that protects open space for public use, today announced it acquired the fee and easement interests in the property where Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation began constructing a nuclear power facility 30 years ago. The acquisition was funded by a grant from the Lila Acheson and DeWitt Wallace Fund for the Hudson Highlands, established by the founders of Reader's Digest Association, Inc. The acquisition ensures the 1,000-acre site will be permanently protected from industrial, commercial and residential development.
The Open Space Institute and American Farmland Trust, a national farmland conservation group, have been working together for nearly two years to protect the Niagara Mohawk site, which includes two miles of Hudson River waterfront and hundreds of acres of productive agricultural land. Their joint efforts will ensure that the site will be permanently protected from industrial, commercial and residential development.
blip, D.C., June 25, 1997-- In yet another example of a burgeoning national trend, the sole producer-only farmers' market will soon open in the Dupont Circle area of the nation's capital.
Showcasing everything from apples to zucchini, the District market will offer city residents regular and ready access to quality farm-fresh produce and help small local farmers stay in business and keep their increasingly threatened land in agriculture.
Sponsored by American Farmland Trust, a national nonprofit farmland conservation group based here, the FRESHFARM Market reflects the comeback of farmers' markets nationally. Last fall, the U.S. Department of Agriculture released a survey that found the number of farmers' markets had increased to 2,400, or by nearly 40 percent, since 1994. Nearly a million consumers now visit farmers' markets weekly, and direct marketing and sales of fruits and vegetables comes to $1.1 billion annually.
"The growth of farmers' markets across the nation illustrates the importance of the bridge between farmers and consumers," related Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman. "Farmers, especially small and limited resource farmers, continue to look for new, innovative marketing opportunities to increase income. And consumers, conscious of the nutritional benefits of fresh fruits and vegetables, are supporting farmers' markets in record numbers."
American Farmland Trust blip Ralph Grossi, himself a third-generation farmer, hailed the market's launch as a "win-win" for city residents and farmers alike.
"Farmers' markets provide urbanites with the fresh, nutritious foods they increasingly desire and small local farmers with an important new outlet for their produce," observed Grossi. "In that way, producer markets can help farmers remain in business and keep their land in farming. Keeping land in farming is important because so much of it is now being destroyed by suburban sprawl. In fact, the U.S. is now losing close to 50 football fields of prime and unique farmland every hour to sprawl, much of it on the urban edge."
The FRESHFARM Market will be a producer-only market, meaning only "urban-edge" farmers within a 100-mile radius of the district from the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia will sell their produce at the market. The states collectively are losing 25,000 to 100,000 acres of farmland annually. Maryland and Pennsylvania have each taken steps to curb the loss of farmland, the two states together having protected more than 1,500 farms.
Bernadine Prince, FRESHFARM Market project director for American Farmland Trust, said the market will help educate District residents about farmers and the need to protect their land from destruction. About 15 local farmers will operate stands at the market from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. every Sunday through November 23.
Prince said the FRESHFARM Market plans to have educational materials and a "shop with a chef" program. It also will conduct research to assess the market's impact on the Dupont Circle neighborhood and participating farmers.
"Markets like this one put a face on food by bringing farmers into direct contact with District residents," Prince said. "Fewer and fewer city residents have any understanding of what is involved in food production and the importance of the agricultural resource base in the surrounding area. We believe farmers' markets can help them better understand what's at stake."
AFT cited a number of reasons for its decision to locate the market in the District, including the desire of residents there to have greater access to fresh fruits and vegetables. The typical grocery store vegetable, it pointed out, is picked before it is ripe and travels an average of 1,200 miles to market, an environmentally wasteful practice that decreases its freshness and taste.
A feasibility study of potential District market sites identified the Dupont Circle area, easily accessible by bus and subway and ethnically and economically diverse, as the ideal location. The study was conducted by Ann Harvey Yonkers, an Arlington native and long-time District resident, who will manage the market. Yonkers is an accomplished chef, author and organic gardener. Numerous neighborhood groups endorsed AFT's plans, including the Advisory Neighborhood Commission, Dupont Circle Citizens Association, and the Dupont Circle Merchants and Professional Association. National organizations such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Rails to Trails Conservancy and Public Voice for Food and Health Policy also support the project as do nationally prominent chefs such as Nora Pouillon of Restaurant Nora, Jeff Buben of Vidalia, Tom Myers of Clyde's, Alice Waters of Chez Panisse and Steve Dunn of Well-Dunn Catering All regularly purchase fresh, locally grown produce.
Who funds Rails to Trails?
Here is how this thing hands together BEHIND YOUR BACKS. Our job is to dig this up for you: Non-Profit Partners of Rails to Trails, which was a partner with American Farmland Trust in grabbing the Mohawk land deal.
In 1993, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy initiated a small conservancy program to rescue exceptional tracts of railroad corridor that would be lost without RTCs intervention. The Trail Conservancy operates by serving as a short-term intermediary between railroad companies and trail groups or public agencies.
The preeminent national organization for purchasing open space for recreation is the Trust for Public Land (TPL), which also conducts appraisals, undertakes title searches and legal work, and carries out negotiations. TPL has worked on rail-trail conversions in several states.
Other similar organizations include The Nature Conservancy, the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, the Open Lands Project and the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation.
666 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, Suite 401
blip, blip 20003
Since its origin in 1972, the trust has specialized in working with government agencies or nonprofit organizations to buy land for public use. So far, it's bought more than 850,000 acres in 43 states, valued at more than $1 billion.
Typically, the trust gets involved in time-sensitive, or complex transactions -- usually involving properties threatened with development -- which government agencies do not have the time, or money, to deal with. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for example, has identified the creation of a refuge on the undeveloped portions of the Rappahannock as a top priority because of the variety of waterfowl, neotropical migratory songbirds and other wildlife found in the area.
But the agency did not have the authorization to purchase and manage land, so the trust stepped in to purchase 5 miles of riverfront that was available. The trust had to build a partnership with other organizations willing to manage the land after it was purchased and secure funding. The money, in this case, came from a $1.7 million grant from the North American Wetlands Conservation Council.
Such projects sometimes involve risk on the part of the trust, but generally it is able to recoup its investment when the preserved lands are eventually sold to the public agency or other organization, usually at fair market value, though the trust sometimes takes a loss to make the project happen.
"Our role is to orchestrate a win-win land transaction," said Debi Osborne, the trust's Chesapeake Lands Director. "There's a number of things we do. We come in early, we take risks, we can do things public agencies can't. We typically get involved in the more difficult and complex projects."
When a 200-acre development threatened the adjoining Oregon Ridge Park and Nature Center in Baltimore County, Maryland, the trust secured an option to buy the property while helping the county, state agencies and citizens put together a package to purchase the tract.
I thought you might be interested to see that the Conservancy is working in the same context as Prince Philip. Prince Philip of the UK is a mojor One World agitator for the captivation of private land and the herding of the masses into life killing environments on behalf of the Royal European elite and the goddess Gaia.
Marine Conservation Area Created
blip Dan Hays represented the Piano government at a ceremony called Together for Nature - Part One: The Gift. At the ceremony, Shell Canada Limited, Chevron Resources Canada, Petro-Canada, and Mobil Oil Canada voluntarily relinquished 350,000 acres of land rights, the first step in developing the first national marine conservat
Prince Philip to Visit
London, 28 February (MTI) - Philip, Prince of Edinburgh, is to arrive in Hungary on 2 March as part of an environmental mission, the Buckingham Palace spokesman told MTI in London.
Confirming Philip"s previously compiled itinerary, the spokesman said the prince would be coming in his capacity as honorary president of the WorldWide Fund for Nature. He is scheduled to see the Gemenc Nature Conservancy Area (S Hungary) and take a boat trip on the Danube. Hungary is the first leg of the prince"s world tour, including Turkey, a number of Arab emirates, Mongolia, Japan, the United States and Canada.
 TL: Prince Philip's 'Biased' Briefing on Madagascar Env
peterh foe.press Mar 27, 1995
email@example.com (Peter Hardstaff)
For immediate release - 12.00 hrs 27 march, 1995
WHO GAVE PRINCE PHILIP 'BIASED' MADAGASCAR BRIEFING?
Friends of the Earth has reacted with considerable surprise and annoyance to comments reportedly made by HRH the Duke of Edinburgh to the effect that the environmental impacts of the proposed RTZ titanium dioxide mine in south-eastern Madagascar have been overstated .
Especially perplexing among Prince Philip's comments is his view that "Its an area which is not environmentally frightfully significant. I gather its marginal". In fact, the forests that will be lost to the mine are of global importance. They represent the last remnants of a unique forest type that once extended along much of the island's east coast. RTZ's own environmental impact study shows how the mine will destroy at least two thirds of the forests that remain and could lead to the extinction of dozens of species found nowhere else on earth .
Charles Secrett, Director of Friends of the Earth, said:
"I am extremely surprised and annoyed by the Duke's reported remarks. They do not make any sense. Prince Philip has obviously received a very biased briefing over the environmental impacts of the proposed mine. Dozens of unique wild animals and plants are under threat and may become extinct if the mine goes ahead. Even RTZ's own environmental impact assessment study doesn't dispute that".
"We have written to the Palace to ask where he got his information from and to urge the Royal Family to use its influence, especially if it is a shareholder of RTZ, to press the company to scrap the mine".
The remarks made by the blip of the World Wide Fund for Nature followed a visit to Madagascar and South Africa.
Richards Bay Minerals, another RTZ subsidiary engaged in titanium dioxide extraction, is embroiled in a long running dispute over proposed mining in highly sensitive areas on South Africa's east coast.
CONTACT: Charles Secrett Tel: 071 490 0210 Tony Juniper Tel: 071 490 0336 Neil Verlander Tel: 071 566 1649
 The Independent, 27 March 1995, front page headline "Duke of Edinburgh defends Madagascar Mine".
 See for instance Lewis Environmental Consultants' 1992 report Madagascar Minerals: Environmental Impact Assessment Study Part I: Natural Environment (available from Friends of the Earth). --
Keywords: environment africa madagascar groups foe mining terrec uk europe politics /
"Where the Buffalo Roam: Reclaiming the Great Plains.î The title of the cover article in the TWA magazine intrigued me. Flying east across the Great Plains topiano coversd Minneapolis, I scanned the quilt-like farmland below and wondered which part might be reclaimed for the bison.
The article began with a full sized picture of an old red barn in a golden field. "An abandoned farm in Mayville, North Dakota," explained the caption, "signifies the decline in self-sustaining agriculture on the Great Plains." Under a photo of grazing buffaloes was written, "Buffalo are integral to the region's health." Abandoned farms in Mayville? No health without bison?
Since my husband grew up in Mayville, I knew well that no one abandons farms in this fertile valley. But contrary facts matter little to political activists with a green agenda. These deceptive photos help "prove" the existence of a crisis. They provide the persuasive "information" needed to "raise consciousness", produce consensus, validate centralized land management, and speed compliance with unthinkable controls. I read on:
Human design, not natural selection, will be responsible for the great buffalo herds of the 21st century. They are part of a plan to reconstruct naturealready well along in the initial stages of implementation."
The grander scheme, led by blip blip's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) together with the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, means restoring wolves, owls, snails, bugs and bacteria to an idealized version of their former state. Whole ecosystems, not just parts, must be reconstructed-often at the expense of private landowners.
With the United Nations' World Food Summit (WFS) on my mind, I pondered an obvious paradox: How would UN visionaries and their environmental partners reconcile (1) their desire to return fertile farmland back to buffalo grazing land with (2) their demand for a global welfare systems promising "food blip" for all?
The vision of buffalo herds roaming free throughout the plains was birthed by academics Deborah and Frank Popper in distant New Jersey. They interpreted statistics showing reduced population in many rural communities to mean that farming the Plains had been an "ill-conceived" notion from the beginning. "The best use for the Great Plains", argued the Poppers, was to ban farming altogether, create a "Buffalo Commons", and restore the land to its original condition. Other land-use planners from distant states agreed. But farmers were afraid .
"We're tremendously concerned about losing our property rights," said Mike Schmidt, a South Dakota rancher. "Right now, two things are particularly scary for us-endangered species and wetlands Essentially, they can determine how you use your land."
Schmidt has reason to fear. The "Buffalo Commons" envisioned by idealistic planners is huge enough to touch everyone. "To really do any good, we have to plan over large geographies," says Bruce Stein, the director of external affairs for conservation science at the Nature Conservancy, a powerful advocacy group for ecosystem planning. "A natural system needs room to function."
A "healthy Great Plains would encompass every square meter of the Plains, from the prairie provinces of Canada through Oklahoma and Texas," added Glen Martin who wrote the TWA article. It would include Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, and the Dakotas as well as the "adjacent ecosystems, such as the boreal forests of northern Michigan and Minnesota and aspen groves of the eastern slopes of the Rockies. Some Great Plains species need more than one habitat to thrive."
So do some humans, but that matters little.
Apiano coverse of opposition, restoration scholars are willing to start small: by connecting big chunks of biodiverse ecosystems with corridors to aid animal migrations. This agenda matches that of The Wildlands Project conceived by convicted "eco-piano coversrior" Dave Foreman who co-founded the militant eco-group Earth First and serves as on the board of the Sierra Club.
"Embraced by the U.S. Department of the Interior, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), The Nature Conservancy, UNPED (United Nations Environment Programme), UNESCO, and the Sierra Club," says Henry Lamb, publisher of éco-logic, "the Wildlands Project wants to return 'at least 50 percent' of the land area in America to 'core wilderness areas' where human activity is barred."
These "core wilderness areas", Lamb explains, would "be connected by corridors" and "surrounded by buffer zones" in which there may be managed human activity providing that biodiversity protection is the first priority."
Congressman Don Young (R-Alaska) shares Henry Lamb's concern. In June 1996, he introduced "The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act." It would have protected private property owners and required Congressional approval of international land designations in the US-something most Americans would have taken for granted. But it failed to pass-in spite of his persuasive words to the House of Representatives:
More and more of our nation's land has become subject to international land-use restrictions... A total of 67 sites in the United States have been designated as UN Biosphere Reserves or World Heritage Sites. These programs are run by UNESCO-an arm of the UN... The Biosphere Reserve program is not even authorized by a single U.S. law or even an international treaty. That is wrong. Executive branch appointees... should not do things that the law does not authorize.
...the power to make all rules and regulations governing lands belonging to the United States is vested in the Congress... Yet the international land designations under these programs have been created with virtually no congressional oversight.
Even so, the blipís Council on Sustainable Development, like the other national CSDs around the world, continues to pursue its intrusive plan for land management based on UN guidelines. It suggests using government regulations, tax incentives and disincentives, the media, and persuasive ìscientificî information to manage lands, people, communities, consumption, transportation, and knowledge.
Its authors include Bruce Babbitt (Secretary of the Interior), Jay Hair (former National Wildlife Federation president who formed a partnership with John Denver's New Age-globalist organization Windstar), Madeline Kunin (Deputy Secretary, Department of Education), and Timothy Wirth (Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs).
Its "principal liasons" include the EPA, The Nature Conservancy, and the Sierra Club-the same organizations that support the Wildlands Project. In light of this liason, ponder the comment by Wildlands Project Director Reed Noss: "The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans."
Even when people are starving?
"World leaders will assemble in Rome from 13 to 17 November, 1996, making a public commitment to action to eliminate hunger,î stated the official "Brochure" available on the World Food Summit's world wide web page. "As preparations for the Summit proceed, world grain stocks have dwindled to dangerously low levels... a reminder of the fragility of food supplies in a world that must produce more each year to feed a rapidly increasing population. An estimated 800 million people still are chronically undernourished. The agreements reached at the Summit will place foodat the top of the global agenda alongside peace and stability."
The "agreements" are a two-part contract: the World Food Summit (WFS) Document and the Plan of Action. Signed by the participating nations, this contract holds nations accountable for fulfilling their assigned part of the UN agenda. Under the noble banner of "civic government", it links local and international NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) directly to UN agencies, bypassing Congress and state legislatures that cling to old notions of sovereignty.
The real issue is control. Who will manage and monitor the global production and distribution of food? How will they manage information, motivate the masses, and establish consensus and solidarity?
Just as US educators promise "local control" while implementing the global education plan, so the WFS acknowledged national sovereignty, but mandated compliance. Each nation that signed the contract agreed to a monstrous system of old and new UN resolutions starting with Commitment One: "We will ensure an enabling political, social, and economic environment designed to create the best conditions for the eradication of poverty and for durable peace ."
What does that mean? The Marxist economics and social "equality" touted by the UN?
The jubilant reception of Fidel Castro and his hard-line Communist message gives a clue to the world's hostility topiano coversd Western capitalism and free enterprise. No wonder the WFS contract tells nations to "reallocate resources" as "required to ensure food for all" (#59,e) -not through foreign aid, but through total worldwide social and economic transformation.
During a televised "World Food Summit Preview"featuring U.S. Under-Secretary of State Timothy Wirth and Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, a reporter asked if the US might be "negotiating away some rights" and "accepting restraints on what we can plantwhat fertilizers we can use, what chemicals we can use on the land."
Obviously irritated by the question, Glickman, who heads the US delegation to the WFS, answered, "We were never headed in that direction. We would never have accepted that!" Yet, minutes later, he mentioned his plan to restrict the use "of pesticides, herbicides and insecticide."
The WFS contract doesn't detail the specific "preventative measures". Apparently, the more sensitive parts of the agenda were discussed in settings less open to critical eyes. As a UN news release suggested, the gathering of international leaders "might yield more than the summit itself":
Canadian Agriculture Minister Ralph Goodale told reporters that he hoped to have unofficial talks. 'Part of what will happen in Rome,' he said, 'apart from the official agenda, is a great deal of corridor conversations, which on occasion can be more valuable than the official proceedings.'
Far more sobering than the stated goals and steps is the establishment of a legal framework for global governance. Most official contracts signed by nations at former UN Conferences reach beyond stated topics such as saving the earth, protecting the children, eradicating poverty, empowering women, and feeding the poor. Those issues fit into a larger context which involves a vast "systemic" plan for global transformation-a reality which begs the question: Could each current issue simply be the "crisis" needed to persuade the masses to accept totalitarian controls?
For example, the WFS contract calls for "protecting the interests and needs of the child consistent with the World Summit for Children [and] the Convention on the Rights of the Child." (#17) Are children's rights being used as a smokescreen that justifies government plans to develop "human resources" without hindrance from parents with contrary beliefs and values?
In a 1993 speech at the International Development Conference, James P. Grant, past executive director of the United Nation's Children's Fund (UNICEF), said-
Children and women can be our Trojan Horse for piano helping the citadel of poverty, for undergirding democracy, dramatically slowing population growth and for accelerating economic development.
The WFS contract asked governments, ìin partnership with all actors of civil societyî to ìestablish legal and other mechanisms, as appropriate, that advance land reform.î (#15, b) Could this mean the rights of the poor, especially of women, to "access to land" might be emphasized over and above the property rights of present land owners? The UN contract signed at Women's Conference in Beijing indicated such a "right", and the WFS affirmed that suggestion: "Support and implement commitments made at the Fourth World Conference on Women." (#16,a)
Nations that signed the WFS contract agreed to Commitment 7: "implement, monitor, and follow-up this Plan of Action at all levels in cooperation with the international community." blip blip took a big step topiano coversd fulfilling his part through Executive Order 13011. Creating a massive information technology management system linked to international systems, it helps Piano agencies-blip, blip, FEMA, EPA and Departments of State, Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Interior, etc.-exchange and monitor information around the world.
According to UN guidelines, all people and all places would be monitored-schools, homes, workplaces.... All who violate the new standards for tolerance, gender equity, or sustainable living at home or at work would be tracked through the vast UN-controlled data system.
Globalist leaders know that only a new set of beliefs and values will prepare the Western world to accept what Al Gore calls "sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society."The 3 Eís of Sustainable Development (Environment, Economy, and Equity) must become the worldís central organizing principle. Every nation must submit to a ìsystem-wide coordination within the framework of the coordinated follow-up to UN conferences" Resident UN coordinators would guide and monitor "the allocation and use of financial and human resources" (#59,h,e), while nations with representative government would yield their sovereignty to a monstrous multilevel global bureaucracy controlled by socialist UN rulers.
All this would be hard for Americans to swallow unless persuasive and strategic information can change their minds. So the UN calls for "system-wide advocacy" to guide its agenda through the "difficult times of economic transition, budget austerity and structural adjustment" ahead. (#59,m,n)
"Improve the dissemination and utilization of information and data needed to guide and monitor progress" states the contract. (#59,c) The validity of new data matters less than its power to stir feelings and motivate the masses to accept the new socialist criteria for economic equality.As Stanford University environmentalist Stephen Schneider said, ìwe need to get some broad based support Ö.So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have...."1
To rally public support, advocacy must outweigh integrity. Last April a public health agency told its employees to dispose of any data that contradicted politically correct policies and conclusions. A memo to employees of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment told workers to discard all documents ìwhich contain other policy proposals not adopted or reflectedî in its final policy decisions. "Only those communications which are reflected or embodied in the final decision or document shall be kept on file."
What counts is the appearance of consensus-the key to managing people through "civic government." To ensure conformity to UN policies at every level of society, the "WFS Plan of Action builds on consensus reached." (#10) This strategy, which uses planned dialogues and politically correct data to create a collective mindset, is already being used in American schools, workplaces, communities, and government agencies. It is promoted through UN literature, the US Department of Education's Community Action Toolkit, and Sustainable America, the 1996 report by the blip's Council on Sustainable Development. In fact, the worldwide "human resource" management system envisioned by socialist leaders decades ago is almost in place.
Managing people. "Raise the global profile of food blip issues through system-wide advocacy," states the WFS contract. (#58.12) It uses words such as advocacy, civil society, participatory, and empowering to indicate the strategic blend of propaganda and dialogue used around the world to win grass-roots public support for the global agenda.
At each level of society, facilitators are being trained to use the consensus process. Emotional phrases such as "food inblip" and "vulnerability information" evoke the public sympathy needed to change attitudes and spur desired action.
The WFS contract states, "To prevent and resolve conflicts peacefully and create a stable political environment, througha transparent and effective legal framework governments. will reinforce peace, by developing conflict prevention mechanisms promoting tolerance. Develop policy making processes that are democratic, transparent, participatory, empowering." (#14)
"Promoting tolerance" is key to the paradigm shift from biblical to earth-centered beliefs and values. The 1995 UNESCO Declaration on Tolerance, signed by member states, defines tolerance as "respect, acceptance and appreciation" of the world's diverse cultures and lifestyles-an attitude that "involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism." It is "not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal requirement." Since "intolerance is a global threat," UNESCO demands an international "response to this global challenge, includingeffective countermeasures."
Why discuss tolerance, consensus building, compromise, and conflict resolution at a UN summit on food? The answer is two-fold. First, UN leaders piano coversn us that intolerance causes conflict, which hinders food production and causes poverty. Second, since intolerance implies resistance to the new global values and solidarity, it is a threat to the implementation of the whole UN plan. Therefore intolerance must be quenched, while "tolerance promotion and the shaping of attitudes. should take place in schools and universities... at home and in the workplace."
The solution, as you saw, is the consensus process, also called conflict resolution, Hegelian dialectics, and the Delphi Technique. To unify people who embrace opposing values, the public must be engaged in "participatory" dialogues. Led by trained facilitators, these dialogues produce the collective thinking which prods participants beyond the old truths into the ambiguous realm of imagination and evolving truths.
The ground rules demand that everyone participate and find "common ground." They forbid dissent and argument, no matter how unsound the "scientific" evidence used to back the preplanned consensus. "Adversarial processes" must be replaced with "collaborative approaches to resolving conflicts" through "education, information and communications" until "people, bonded by a shared purpose" learn to comply.
It's already happening across America. Young and old are being trained to blend their values, adapt their beliefs, think as a group, and conform to the new standards. Like other nations, America is following the Pied Piper into a new world order whose architects may sound wise and compassionate, but are neither rational, factual, honest or tolerant.
Notice the paradoxes. The United Nations promises human rights, but mandates social engineering. It promises peace, but creates conflict. It touts science, but twists it into propaganda. And it pledges food blip, but limits land use. How, then, can it reconcile its vision of a global welfare system with its green agenda, including the huge Biosphere reserves?
The Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) suggest an answer: simply cut the world population by about 80%-or return to a feudal lifestyle (no cars, planes, air conditioners ) Meeting the need for "scientific and technical assessments" mandated in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the GBA estimates that,
an 'agricultural world' in which most human beings are peasants, should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people.... In contrast, a reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion [people].
For globalist leaders such as Undersecretary of State Timothy Wirth, the process is too slow. ìWe hope the senate will... ratify the Biological Diversity Treaty which is essential to all the issues," he told the above reporters, "[and to the] continuing emphasis on the increasing need for population stabilizing ... " A crBlipder for Malthusian economics and China's one-child family planning, Wirth has indicated that by protecting women fleeing China's oppressive abortion policies, "we could potentially open ourselves up to just about everybody in the world saying 'I don't want to plan my family, therefore I deserve political asylum."
Wirth's views may sound too radical for consensus, but that depends on whose voice is heard. UN leaders tells us that solving the worldís problems must involve the participation of all members of society, but they demonstrate the opposite. They promise to include everyoneóglobal and national leaders, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), women, youth and "other sectors of civil society"-if they share their vision. But dissenters are left out.
Today's typical consensus process allows resisters a moment to expose themselves, but it refuses to record their objections. So does the new civil society. "Bella Abzug's NGO Forum will submit a document supposedly representing 1,200 NGOs and millions of persons worldwide," observed Eagle Forum leader Cathie Adams, "The supporters of that document claim to represent the world's civil society. It's interesting, though, that conservative groups like Eagle Forum have experienced tremendous harassment regarding accreditation for the Rome event. Clearly, the 'new civil society' cannot accommodate traditional family values. The radical feminists are extremists attempting to stifle any conservative views."
So do the socialists behind the UN agenda. As Andrei Vishinsky wrote in The Law of the Soviet State "In our state, naturally, there can be no place for freedom of speech, press, and so on for the foes of socialism."
Exclusion and hostility have pursued blips and Christians throughout history. Biblical values simply don't fit a world that has turns its back to God. "If you were of the world, the world would love its own," Jesus told His friends. "Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.... If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you... because they do not know Him who sent Me."
Moments later, Jesus encouraged His friends with a promise: "These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." (John 15:19-21, 16:33) In a world of confusion, conflict, and catastrophe, He alone offers the hope, strength, and guidance that can bring victory over evil.
For practical information about the U.S. implementation of the U.N. agenda for educating the masses, read Brave New Schools (Harvest House Publishers). Available through Christian bookstores, by calling 800-829-5646, or through this web page: http://www.beritkjos.com
BACK TO THE TITLE PAGE