Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

AGENDA 21/ RE-WILDING/ SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES/GLOBAL WARMING

agenda21_fuzzy

Communitarianism Central to the communitarian philosophy is the concept of positive rights, which are rights or guarantees to certain things. (As opposed to the Bill of Rights which is considered a body of negative rights from government interference.) The American legal system is based on “natural law” and the endowment by the Creator of inalienable rights to individuals.

It is also based on the English “common law” which emphasizes the rights of the individual even when they conflict with community or government interest. California, Texas and Louisiana are considered civil law states adhering more to a system of codes. This system emphasizes the rights of the state or government over that of the individual.

Smart Growth Fraud

Land-use control has been a goal of socialists for many decades. Laurence Rockefeller’s 1972 publication of The Use of Land: A Citizen’s Policy Guide to Urban Growth was instrumental in attempting to enact land-use regulation in Congress several times in the early 1970s. Edited by William K. Reilly, who later served as EPA Administrator under George Bush senior, the report claimed that planning the wise use of land is the best tool to guide growth toward achieving economic equality and protecting environmental quality.

Following the failed attempt to employ the anti-property rights features of The Use of Land, the United Nations set the same agenda in the 1976 Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I) held in Vancouver. For instance, the Preamble of Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report states: “The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….” (Italics added)

Smart growth advocates seek to preserve land in a natural or agricultural state by encouraging individuals to live in denser communities that take up smaller tracts of land per housing unit. Such communities also encourage residents to rely more on walking or public transit than on cars for mobility, and they more closely mix retail and other commercial facilities with residential units to foster easy access to jobs and shopping.

Land-use control can often become an obsession to planners for obvious reasons. In order to plan and control growth in their enlightened way, government bureaucrats and planning advocates must control property rights. Private property rights and smart growth are therefore mutually exclusive.

Such policies do not permit Americans the freedom to live where they choose. They must live inside urban growth boundaries. Developers must provide open space around new development. Americans may not live in greenbelt areas around urban centers. They may not live in designated viewsheds of scenic highways, or in the buffer zone of a Heritage River or a designated stream.

Those advocating smart growth can become so obsessive they become irrational. For instance, on June18, 2001, the Sierra Club defined “efficient urban density” as a city containing 500 housing units to the acre. Put another way, 500 families would have to live on an acre of land which is 209 x 209 feet! This would require a 14-story apartment building if 36 very small 1,000 square foot units (with hallways) occupied each floor! Increasing the apartment size to 1500 square feet would require a 21-story building!

 After being criticized that such densities were more than three times greater than the highest density tracts in Manhattan and more than double the most dense and squalid ward of Bombay, India, the Sierra Club quickly revised its definition of urban efficiency to 100 units per acre. Reaching even that goal, however, would require living arrangements that are 2.4 times as dense as all Manhattan, twice as dense as central Paris and ten times that of San Francisco according to the Heritage Foundation. The density of the average suburban area is 1-3 units per acre.

At least nineteen states have state growth-management laws or task forces to protect farmland and open space. Dozens of cities and counties have adopted urban growth boundaries to contain development and prevent the spread of urbanization to outlying and rural areas. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) partially funded a 2002 report called “Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planning and the Manage-ment of Change.” Congress is considering passing “The Community Character Act,” which proposes to fund state and local efforts to reform their land use planning process to conform more closely to smart growth policies.

The Legislative Guidebook calls for using federal funding as a carrot to mandate a more restrictive “integrated state-regional-local planning system that is both vertically and horizontally consistent.” Vertically and horizontally consistent, in turn, means total government control from the federal government to the local community across America. One size fits all. This dovetails with Section 4(c)(1)(D) of the Community Character Act which calls for funding and “coordination of Federal, State, regional, tribal, and local land use plans.”

 The paranoia about the need to control growth is a constant drumbeat of those promoting urban planning. They claim America is rapidly losing its farmland and open space. Yet, the U.S. Bureau of Census classifies less than 5 percent of the U.S. as being developed and less than 2.5 percent as urban using the 2002 corrected data

Even in the densely populated east, both New York and Pennsylvania are only 10 percent developed. New Jersey, the most developed state, has only 30 percent of its land developed. To top it all off, less than one-quarter of the loss in farmland since 1945 is due to urbanization, and the rate of loss has been dropping since the 1960s. 

The presumption that low-density residential development means more pollution, more congestion and fewer preserved natural resources is equally false. Likewise, the belief that higher-density compact development mitigates those impacts is false. Increasing population density does little to alleviate auto-caused smog. Urban and suburban areas with the lowest population densities have the fewest air pollution problems.

Population density or compactness also has little relationship to how much commuters depend on automobiles.More than 75 percent of commuter trips are by car — even in urban areas. Thus, any planning strategy that attempts to increase population density usually leads to more traffic congestion and stalled traffic. This exacerbates air pollution levels and potentially causes more areas to fail federal clean air goals.This, in turn requires regulations that are even more restrictive.

Portland, Oregon, the model for urban planning, has had the most stringent land-use plans in the U.S. since the 1970s. In implementing its plan, Portland has stopped building highways and instead has built two light commuter rails that failed to achieve their goals. Transit commuter use actually dropped 20 percent from 1980 to 1991. Additionally, in spite of the severe hardship imposed on those who want to use automobiles, the Portland area experienced the largest increase in automobile use per capita from 1990 to 1999 of any U.S. urban area with more than one million people.

The same is true for alternative transit methods. San Francisco’s proposed Third Street light rail line, for instance, will cost $40.50 per ride, which is equal to $18,225 annually per new commuter. Notes theHeritage Foundation:

For the same money, each new commuter could lease a new Pontiac Grand Am throughout the “life” of the rail system and pay for more than 100,000 miles of air travel at the average ticket rate each year. Alternatively, one could lease the Grand Am and use the remainder of the annual subsidy for the average mortgage payment in the nation’s most expensive housing market.

Urban planning has also failed miserably in providing affordable housing. As a rule, more dense areas cost more to build in, tend to have higher taxes, higher levels of pollution, and a higher cost of living. The Heritage Foundation reports that; “Data indicate that housing affordability in Portland (percentage of households that can afford the median priced home) dropped 56 percent from 1991 to 2000, the largest reduction of any major urban area in the nation! Portland’s home ownership rate fell as a result.” The poor, of course, suffer the most in this kind of failed policy. Families no longer able to afford single-family homes in Portland have to move into multifamily units. During 1992-97, the number of housing permits issued for multifamily units doubled from 25 percent to 49 percent.

Land-use zoning can also have a devastating impact on the cost of land. A March 2002 study published by the Harvard Institute of Economic Research showed that zoning dramatically increases the cost of land in urban areas. Where regulatory zoning is not artificially driving up the price of land, the cost of an extra quarter-acre in a single lot is very similar to a separate and independent buildable quarter-acre lot. This condition exists in urban Kansas City. However, in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Anaheim, San Diego, New York City, Seattle and others like them, the difference between the cost of an extra quarter-acre in a lot, and a separate buildable quarter-acre lot is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. “In these areas,” claims the Harvard study, “only a small percentage of the value of the lot comes from an intrinsically high land price; the rest is due to restrictions on construction.” Land-use restrictions were the only variable correlated with the huge cost increases.

The aggressive promotion of smart growth policies by some in the media, politicians and a gross misrepresentation of the facts by many environ-mentalists threatens the freedom of ordinary Americans to choose living arrangements that best suit their needs. Although smart growth proponents advocate land-use control as a means of providing affordable housing, it punishes low-income families, keeping them from ever being able to afford a home of their own and denying them the American Dream. According to the Heritage Foundation, home ownership rates among African-American and Hispanic families are still below 50 percent, in contrast to the nearly 75 percent ownership rates among white households. The very fashionable Fauquier County, Virginia, which has imposed severe growth restrictions and limits on homebuilding, has seen its African-American population fall both relatively and absolutely over the decade of the 1990s.

No matter how it is cut, urban planning and smart growth is a bald-faced fraud that is creating a nightmare for people across America. From a few academics and environmentalists to the media, state and local officials, and high-level federal officials of all ideologies and party affiliations, this misguided vision has spread despite overwhelming evidence that it does not work. The persistence of these beliefs despite all facts to the contrary is a tribute to the power of a fashionable idea favoring federal intervention, however illogical it may seem in practice and experience.

It is time to pull all federal funding for any program dealing with smart growth or urban planning. Imposing such altruistic ideals just does not work. They harm both the environment and the citizens whom they are supposed to help!

Earth Summit

Agenda 21

Taking Liberty– How Private Property is being Abolished in America (video)

Taking Liberty is a comprehensive look at the lower 48 states showing, region by region, how the Environmental Movement is rapidly abolishing Private Property in America.

When you click on the links below, a new window will open and play each program.

Please Note: You must have a Macromedia or Adobe Flash player installed on your
computer to view the programs.

Video by R.J. Smith on the success of systems where wildlife is privately owned (Resourceful Earth)

International ORGANIZATIONS – NGOs etc.

  • 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted by the UN.
  • 1968 – The Biosphere Conference (UNESCO Paris, September) ‘Scientific basis for Rational Use and Conservation of the Resources of the Biosphere’  recommended concerpted efforts  to establish natural areas for the preservation of species, their habitats, and representative samples of ecosystems. Stanley Cain (USA) described the need for conservation of natural areas and landscape planning—multidisciplinary, multiagency, public-private joint planning that recognized the existence and nature of natural and human ecosystems—essentially ‘ecological planning.’
  • 1970 The Seville Starategy for Biosphere Reserves (1995); The Statutory Framework for the World network of Biosphere Reserves; Man and the Biosphere Program – “systematic approach”; Biosphere Reserves; brochure; 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 is used for co-operative activities compatible with sound ecological practices; and a flexible transition area, or area of co-operation, which may contain a variety of agricultural activities, settlements and other uses where resources are managed collaboratively on a sustainable basis.
  • 1971 RAMSAR Treaty on Wetlands; texts
  • 1972 UN Conference on The Human Environment held in Stockholm;  (Declaration); Action Led to UNEP
  • 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species CITES text
  • 1974 – Use of CFC Gases Predicted to Deplete Ozone Layer
  • 1975 Belgrade Charter on Environmental Education
  • 1976 Habitat I – Conference on Human Settlements, held in Vanvouver 1976;Declaration; Agenda item 10 of the Preamble of the Conference Report “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; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….”
  • 1977 First World Wilderness Congress; Article
  • 1978 UN-HABITAT is the United Nations Agency for human settlements. It is mandated by the UN General Assembly to promote socially and environmentally sustainable human settlements development and adequate shelter for all
  • 1979 First World Climate Conference (Switzerland)
  • 1980 Second World Wilderness Congress
  • 1980 ICUN World Conservation Strategy; The World Conservation Strategy was formulated by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) in cooperation with the U.N. Environmental Program (UNEP) and World Wildlife Fund (WWF), FAO and UNESCO.
  • 1982 World Resources Institute
  • 1982 Law of the Sea Treaty (came into force in 1994) signed but not ratified by US
  • 1982 World Charter for Nature
  • 1983 World Commission on Environment and Development created Burndtland Commission
  • 1983  UNESCO and UNEP jointly convened the First International Biosphere Reserve Congress in Minsk (Belarus), in cooperation with FAO and IUCN. The Congress’s activities gave rise in 1984 to an ‘Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves.’ which was formally endorsed by the UNESCO General Conference
  • 1984 International Conference on Environment and Economics
  • 1984 WWF conceives of “debt for nature” loan swap –  Environmental groups list endangered species from other countries on the US list. The national government of a country in debt to the US   agrees to either enact certain environmental policies or endow a government bond in the name of a conservation organization, with the aim of funding conservation programs. In exchange, the US agrees to sell the debt to the conservation organization at well below its face value.
  • 1985 U.N. Convention on Ozone Depleting Substances
  • 1986 ICUN Conference on Environment and Development is held in Ottawa.
  • 1987-88 Brudtland Commission Report Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future: popularized term ‘sustainable development.’ Defined ‘sustainable development’ as “…development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”Interviews with Gro Harlem on Brundtland (former Vice-President of the World Socialist Party )
  • 1988 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer
  • 1987 Fourth World Wilderness Congress (Colorado) David Rockefeller speaker – discussions on the creation of a “World Conservation Bank” to collateralize 30% “debt for nature” collateral swaps; Merging conservation with development. Environmental jamboree brings nations together to preserve world’s rich wilderness areas – `sustainable development’ is key
  • 1988 Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change IPCC
  • 1989 Climate Action Network
  • 1990 Allan Solomon in the Forward to Toward Ecological Sustainability in Europe: Climate, Water Resources, Soils, and Biota – a report written for the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) states that: “Ecologically sustainable development is a condition in which society’s use of renewable resources takes place without destruction of the resources or of the environmental context which they require.
  • 1991 Caring For the Earth – (Sustainable Living); Sierra Club Retrospective (Power Pt) Included a network of protected ecosystems
    • Chapter 4. Conserving the Earth’s vitality and diversity Action 4.1. Adopt a precautionary approach to pollution. Action 4.2. Cut emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons. Action 4.3. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Action 4.4. Prepare for climate change. Action 4.5. Adopt an integrated approach to land and water management, using the drainage basin as the unit of management. Action 4.6. Maintain as much as possible of each country’s natural and modified ecosystems. Action 4.7. Take the pressure off natural and modified ecosystems by protecting the best farmland and managing it in ecologically sound ways. Action 4.8. Halt net deforestation, protect large areas of old-growth forest, and maintain a permanent estate of modified forest. Action 4.9. Complete and maintain a comprehensive system of protected areas. Action 4.10. Improve conservation of wild plants and animals. Action 4.11. Improve knowledge and understanding of species and ecosystems. Action 4.12. Use a combination of in situ and ex situ conservation to maintain species and genetic resources. Action 4.13. Harvest wild resources sustainably. Action 4.14. Support management of wild renewable resources by local communities; and increase incentives to conserve biological diversity.
  • 1991 Global Environmental Facility founded by United Nations Development Programme unites 182 member governments — in partnership with international institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector — to address global environmental issues; Instrument for Establishment of the GEF; GEF IW:LEARN
  • 1992 Global Biodiversity Strategy Guidelines for Action to Save, Study, and Use Earth’s Biotic Wealth Sustainably and Equitably; World Resources Institute (WRI), The World Conservation Union (IUCN), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), In consultation with Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
  • 1992 Global Forum video (NGOs)
  • 1992 Rio Earth Summit, President George H.W. Bush signs the Framework Convention on Climate Change, endorses the Rio Declaration, the Statement of Forest Principles and adopts Agenda 21 on behalf of the United States of America. Statement of Forest Principles; Principle 2b Forset resources and forest lands should be sustainably managed..” conservation of biological diversity; sustainable use; equitable sharing 
  • 1993 President Bush did not sign the Convention on Biological Diversity. (see also) It was signed by President Clinton in 1994, although never ratified by Congress. (textArticle 7 (inventory),  Artcle 8 (conservation); Article 25; Video;  CBDStructure; Treaty Implementation Without Treaty ratification ; How the Convention on Biodiversity was defeated; From speech by Maurice Strong: “The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.” He also stated: “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable. A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.”
  • 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
  • 1992 UN Commission on Global Governance; 1993 “Our Global Neighborhood” (Analysis)
  • 1993 UN Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) to help countries implement Agenda 21
  • 1993 Montreal Process; brochure (Seminar of Experts on Sustainable Development of Boreal and Temperate Forests) The US is a signatory to this; Resulted in initiative to develop and implement internationally agreed criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests.
  • 1994 Convention to Combat Desertification UNCCD;
  • 1994 Working Grp – Criteria Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable management of Temperate and Boreal Forests (Geneva) US participates
  • 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo)
  • 1994 GATT – transfer of power to the WTO
  • 1994 World Trade Organization
  • 1994 Strategic Plan for the US Biosphere Reserve Program ; “Protected Area” is the U.S. term for UNESCO’s “Core Area” Similarly, “managed Use Area” is the U.S. term for UNESCO’s “Buffer Zone,” and “Zone of Cooperation” is the U.S. term for UNESCO’s “Transition Area;” USA-UN Man and Biosphere & World Heritage Sites; US MAB Program site (47 UN Biosphere Reserves in USA); The US MAB Concept and Program—A Chronology Addressing Biosphere Reserves
  • 1995 SBSTTA – Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and   Technological Advise (Conference of the Parties Convention on Biodiversity) emphasized “conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity”.. “ecosystem approach should be primary framework of action to be taken under the convention”
  • 1995 Santiago Declarations;Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests; endorsed by US (2006 Sapporo Japan refinements)
  • 1995 UNCSD Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (meet NYC) United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development established IPF to continue forest policy dialogue following Earth Summit
  • 1995 (Climate Change) Report of the Conference of the Parties on its first session
  • 1995 Global International Waters Assessment
  • 1995 Global Programme of Action on Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities (GPA)
  • 1995 (UNCSD) Commission on Sustainable Development met on forests and dryland ecosystems and established an Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF)
  • 1995 Report of the Commission on Global Governance: “Our Global Neighborhood“- Global taxation; A standing UN army; An Economic Security Council; UN authority over the global commons; An end to the veto power of permanent members of the Security Council; A new parliamentary body of “civil society” representatives (NGOs); A new “Petitions Council“; A new Court of Criminal Justice (Accomplished in July, 1998 in Rome); Binding verdicts of the International Court of Justice; Expanded authority for the Secretary General.
  • 1995 GBA – Global Biodiversity Assessment; about GBA;  (Excerpts) ; Summary (WWF, ICUN how to implement biodiversity treaty. The Global Biodiversity Assessment sets forth a system of ecosystem management. Last 200 pages Section 13 deals with “system of protected areas” (Core areas, buffer zones) Page 993 Wildlands Project is central theme of “protected areas” ; Global Biodiversity Assessment: Section 10 (A condensation by Henry Lamb and Dr. Michael Coffman); Treaty Implementation without Treaty Ratification
  • 1995 UNESCO Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework for the World Network of Biosphere Reserves; Promote biosphere reserves as means of implementing the goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Promote a comprehensive approach to biogeographical classification (GAP analysis) that takes into account such ideas as vulnerability analysis. Link biosphere reserves with each other, and with other protected areas, through green corridors.  Incorporate biosphere reserves into plans for implementing the sustainable use goals of Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Integrate biosphere reserves into regional planning.

Economics%20of%20One%20Health%20Comic.jpg (25251 bytes)

  • 2002 Framework Convention on Climate Change
  • 2002-2006 Millennium Development Project
  • 2002 Second Agenda 21 survey UN Secretariat for the World Summit on Sustainable Development and in collaboration with the UN Development Programme Capacity 21
  • 2002 UNFF Ministerial Statement and Message to the World Summit on Sustainable Development UNFF2 addressed progress related to environmental aspects of the conservation and sustainable management of forests
  • UN FAO Forestry Dept: Sustainable Forest Management and the Ecosystem Approach: Two concepts, one goal; Identifies US forests as “protected” under the Montreal ecoregion Process
  • 2004 IUCN (World Conservation Union) and ICEL (International Council of Environmental Law) Draft International Covenant of Environment and Development presented at 59th session of UN General Assembly: Article 3 declares that the global environment should be under the “protection” of “international law”; Article 20, requires mitigation of “the adverse effects of climate change”.; Article 33 requires countries to determine “the size of the human population their environment is capable of supporting” and to implement measures to make sure that the population does not exceed that level; Article 34 endorses a one world economic system that respects the environment and intra generational equity as part of “sustainable development”; Article 41, requires nations to integrate sustainable development principles into all decisions regarding “infrastructure and town and country planning”; Article 69 appears to establish the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea as the “judicial branch” for this global governance scheme.
  • 2005 Millenium Ecosystem Assessment ; Overall Assess; Biodiversity Defines “ecosytem services” as (1) provisioning services, such as food, fresh water, fuel, and fiber; (2) regulating services, such as climate, water, and disease regulation, as well as pollination; (3) supporting services, such as soil formation and nutrient cycling, crop pollination; and (4) cultural services, such as educational, aesthetic, spritual and cultural heritage values, as well as recreation and tourism.
  • 2006 Sapporo Japan refinements) on the 1995 Santiago Declarations;Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests; Sustainable Forest management, Biodiversity and Livelihoods
  • 2006 Istanbul Declaration on Human Settlements; The Habitat Agenda Goals and Principles, Commitments and the Global Plan of Action
  • 2007 Bellagio Workshop Report on Payments for Watershed Services (PWS)
  • 2007 Bali Action Plan, agreed at COP 13 (UN Framework convention on climate change)
  • 2007 IPCC.   a. Climate Change 2007 Synthesis Report: Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
  • 2007 ICLEI Three pillars or “triple bottom line” of people, planet, profit  – (social, ecological and economic) UN standard for urban and community accounting or “true cost accounting”- includes EcoBudget metric (Ecological Footprint) and ISO 26000 series for corporate social responsibility; The concept of TBL demands that a company’s responsibility lies with stakeholders rather than shareholders
  • 2007 Potsdam Initiative 2010 Economics of Biodiversity
  • 2008  Climate Change and Water Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; IPCC;
  • 2008 3rd World Congress of Biosphere Reserves 2008-13 Madrid Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves raised biosphere reserves to be the principal internationally-designated areas dedicated to sustainable development in the 21st century. – incorporates adaptation to climate change, The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), ecosystem services, sustainable development, 
  • Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation
  • 2009-10 The Marrakech Process – Ten Year Framework on Sustainable Consumption and Production as called for by the WSSD Johannesburg Plan of Action.; Sustainable lifstyles, consumption, building, tourism,
  • 2010 EC+10 Earch Charter 10 year review; Ethical Framework for a Sustainable World. Organized as part of the celebrations of the 10th anniversary of the Earth Charter.
  • 2010 third edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook – includes addressing production and consumption patterns Outline of the 10 year framework
  • 2010 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Cancun Agreements,
  • 2010 Report of the GEF to the Sixteenth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations
  • 2010 The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) Leaflet.
  • World Bank Transformational Government Framework Technical Committee ; World Bank PES
  • Key Elements of the Strategic Plan (Convention on Biologocal Diversity) 2011-2020, including Aichi Biodiversity Targets(COP-10)The mission of the new plan is to “take effective and urgent action to halt the loss of biodiversity in order to ensure that by 2020 ecosystems are resilient and continue to provide essential services, thereby securing the planet’s variety of life, and contributing to human well-being, and poverty eradication. To ensure this, pressures on biodiversity are reduced, ecosystems are restored, biological resources are sustainably used and benefits arising out of utilization of genetic resources are shared in a fair and equitable manner; adequate financial resources are provided, capacities are enhanced, biodiversity issues and values mainstreamed, appropriate policies are effectively implemented, and decision-making is based on sound science and the precautionary approach.”
  • NationalOrganizations/movements/ eco-philosophies

    National events, documents

    nixon signing epa order

    1969-1974 Pres. Richard Nixon

    • 1969 Congress passes NEPA
    • 1970 First “Earth Day”
    • 1970 EPA created by Executive Order
    • 1970 Congress authorized amendments to the Clean Air Act (passed in 1963) that imposed new regulations, the first of their kind, on industrial and mobile sources of air pollutants
    • 1972 Clean Water Act.
    • 1973 Endangered Species Act (Based on 5 International Treaties) states its purpose is to “develop and maintain conservation programs which meet national and international standards.”
    • 1974 The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 requires “…an analysis of the potential effects of global climate change on the condition of renewable resources on the forests and rangelands of the United States.” 
    • Wilderness Act; RARE I and RARE II; study for potrntial primitive area conversion to wilderness by 1974; 1973 completion of Wilderness study area inventory; RARE II was completed in January of 1979 and identified 2,919 areas containing just over 62 million acres; recommended that 15 million acres be added to the NWPS, 36 million acres be allocated to nonwilderness uses, and about 11 million acres be placed into a further planning category. Challenged by the State of CA in 1983 for not including certain roadless areas

    1977-1981 President Carter

    The Carter administration created a Department of Energy and mandated corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards to make cars more fuel-efficient.

    1981-1989 Pres. Ronald Reagan

    • 1981 Global 2000 Report by US Council on Environmental Quality
    • 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, Vienna
    • 1986 Water Resources Development Act (cited as an authority for the Army Corps IRWM) Navigation, Harbor and Flood Control Projects
    • 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Montreal
    • 1987-present USGS Gap Analysis Program How well are we protecting common plants and animals? Gap Analysis is the science of answering this question.  Developing the data and tools to support that science is the mission of the USGS Gap Analysis Program (GAP). GAP works to ensure that common species – those that are not officially endangered – remain common by identifying those species and plant communities that are not adequately represented in existing conservation lands. GAP bases its analysis of species protection on GAP Status Code 1 and 2 lands only. In assigning a stewardship ranking, the gap analysis process emphasizes the managing entity over the owner, and bases the ranking on the expressed long-term intent of the managing entity instead of focusing on short-term processes. The criteria for assigning a ranking include:
      • Permanence of protection from conversion of natural land cover to unnatural land cover such as human-induced barren, arrested succession, or cultivated exotic-dominated landscapes).
      • Amount of the tract protected, with a 5% allowance for intensive human use.
      • Inclusiveness of the protection, i.e., is protection focused on a single feature such as a wetland or particular species or does it encompass all biota and habitat.
      • Type of management program and degree that it is mandated or institutionalized
      • map viewer
      • Gap Analysis FACT sheet
      • National Biological Information Infrastructure
      • REO (Regional Ecosystem Office) GIS (NWFP); Land Use Allocations
    • 1990 National Forest FoundationNational Charter Public Law 101-593-Title IV-Nov. 16, 1990
    • 1990 Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC)organized   under OMB Circular A-16

    1989-1993 Pres. George H. W. Bush

    1993-2001 Pres. Bill Clinton
    (The “Third Way”)

    2001-2009 Pres. George. W. Bush

    The U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming issued a permanent injunction and set aside the roadless rule on July 14, 2003. The court found that the roadless rule was promulgated in a manner that was illegal, both procedurally and substantively. The court ruled against the government on 5 of 6 claims under the National Environmental Policy Act, and also found that the roadless rule violated the Wilderness Act of 1964 because the timber harvest and road construction prohibitions constitute establishment of de facto wilderness (only Congress can designate wilderness areas). This decision was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

    President Bush modified the regulations allowing states to designate their own roadless areas; 2006 court shot down the Bush modifications; 2006 a ban on road construction was imposed by the court on oil and gas leases; 2009 Secretary of Agriculture issued a directive giving the Secretary of Agriculture final authority on most road development and timber activity in National Forests, for a period of one year.

    • USDA/ FSA “Debt For Nature” farm loan forgiveness in exchange for conservation contract
    • 2008 Sept. 12, Federal Register states that Sec. 2031 of Water Resources Development Act of 2007 requires that the Corps use the Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM). And “There are many definitions of IWRM. One of the most accepted is that of the Global Water Partnership. IWRM is the (planning) process which promotes the co-ordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems.” (The U.S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources has a Memorandum of Understanding with the Global Water Partnership. )
    • 2008 Biodiversity and Ecosystem Informatics Work Group; Subcommittee on Ecological Systems (SES) Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) National Science and Technology Council
    • 2008 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Building Strong Collaborative Relationships for a Sustainable Water Resources Future Provide a big picture of water planning in the United States, highlight opportunities for more integrated water resources management, collaborate to address comprehensive and integrated state-wide and regional water resource and planning needs. The Army Corps “will not tolerate competition for resources, allow or reinforce a win-lose dynamic that promotes individual competition for resources”
    • 2008 USFS Stategic Framework for Responding to Climate Change

    2009- Pres. Barack Obama

    “The American system of policymaking has a clear set of principles governing the relations between various actors in the process. Congress, acting on the preferences of the voters who elected it, makes laws that establish the objectives for programs. Administrative agencies, with congressional grants of authority and appropriations of funds, implement the objectives established by Congress. In pursuing their statutory mandates, agencies are expected to marshal expertise, from both within and outside the agency. The role of the courts is to ensure that agencies do not deviate from their statutory mandates.”  (Dodd and Schott 1979).

    o        The Obama Administration proposes to “fully fund” ($900 million a year) the

    • Army Corps Institute for Water Resources (IWR) Signs Agreement with UNESCO Center in the Dominican Republic The IWR “hosts” the International Center for Integrated Water Resources Management (ICIWaRM). ICIWaRM is a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) “Category 2” Center—an institution “under the auspices of UNESCO” but operated by the host country. ICIWaRM was officially created by an agreement between the U.S. Government and UNESCO in October 2009. Chapter 18 of Agenda 21 requires that all States implement integrated watershed management plans “for the protection and conservation of the potential sources of freshwater supply, including … protection of mountain slopes and riverbanks and other relevant development and conservation activities.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that integrated water resources management (IWRM) should be the “instrument to explore adaptation measures to climate change.” According to the Global Water Partnership, IWRM development and management of water, land, and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems.” IWRM strategies are based on the four Dublin Principles presented at the World Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.: Fresh water is a finite and vulnerable resource, essential to sustain life, development and the environment. Water development and management should be based on a participatory approach, involving users, planners and policy-makers at all levels. Women play a central part in the provision, management and safeguarding of water.Water is a public good and has a social and economic value in all its competing uses. Powerpts:  Moving National Direction Toward a Sustainable Water Future; Federal Support Toolbox for IWRM; Climate Change and Water Resources Management: A federal perspective
    • Western States Water Council; (Appt. by Governors of 18 western states)  2010 workplan; Resolution on water mgt.; WestFAST currently consists of 11 federal agencies,  that support the Council; (fact sheet); 2011 Work Plan; NIDIS National Integrated Drought Information System – Creating a Drought Early Warning System for the 21st Century

    2011 Integrated Water Resources Science and Services Consortia ( IWRSS) Collaborative Science, Services and Tools to Support Integrated and Adaptive Water Resources Management 50 States and 12 -> 24 Federal Agencies, regional service agents for stakeholder participation, Coordinated National/RegionalWorkflow and Operations; www.water.gov; Building Strong Collaborative Relationships for a Sustainable Water Resources Future The Federal Support Toolbox for Integrated Water Resources Management (FTB) (Involves the Nature Conservancy): Shared policy, authorities, and best practices; Sustain water quality; Minimize flood and drought impacts; Promote conservation ecosystem management and health; Optimize water allocation and use; Maximize hydropower generation; Planning and Policy; Foster coordinated water policy; Balance competing needs; Support adaptive water s·  upply planning; Build community resilience; Sustain economic growth; Agency Interoperability Charter and MOUs, River Basin Commissions, regional implementation

    ·  2011 President Obama’s Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation   and Regulatory Review;

    ·  2011 USFWS (DOI) and NOAA Proposes to administratively amend the Endangered Species Act through Rulemaking ; Department of the Interior Preliminary Plan for Retrospective Regulatory Review

    ·  2011 USFS “All Lands” approach Watershed Condition Framework A Framework for Assessing and Tracking Changes to Watershed Condition ; USDA Agroforestry Strategic Framework, Fiscal Year 2011–2016 ; Region 5 Ecological Restoration Leadership Intent – “sustainable ecosystems”and “sustainable delivery of ecosystem services

    ·  2011 NPS Protecting Wildlife Habitat Linkages through collaborative science, transportation planning and roadway design

    ·  2011 Cooperative Watershed Management Program Phase I of WaterSMART “BIA will identify alternative funding sources with Federal, state and local agencies to study shared watersheds (e.g., Cooperative Watershed Management Program authorized by P.L. 111-11) and assist tribes in developing cooperative agreements for shared management of local resources that include both state and Federal concerns.

    ·  2011 Committee on Incorporating Sustainability in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; National Research Council Report

    ·  2011 American Rivers CEO Is Nominated for Interior Assistant Secretary Post ; Idaho water group opposes Fish and Wildlife post pick ; Choice for interior official too controversial to stand

    ·  2011 The Fed Audit

    ·  2011 Executive Order – Establishment of the White House Rural Council

    ·  2011 Federal Partners Unite to Help Rural Communities with Environmental and Economic; Goals; Partnership for Sustainable Communities; EPA/HUD SmartGrowth; Supporting Sustainable Rural Communities – Partnership for Sustainable Communities

    ·  2011 White House unveils broad plan to fight domestic radicalism

    ·  2011 IBD report Regulation Business, Jobs Booming Under Obama -Regulatory agencies have seen their combined budgets grow a healthy 16% since 2008, topping $54 billion, according to the annual “Regulator’s Budget,” compiled by George Washington University and Washington University in St. Louis. …employment at these agencies has climbed 13% since Obama took office to more than 281,000…

    ·  2011 USDA MOU on Enviroinmental Justice and Executive Order 12898

    ·  2011 Presidential Executive Order 13547 to unilaterally implement a new National Ocean Policy (Lacks Congressional Authorization; Unilateral Action by the Obama Administration; Imposes Ocean/Coastal   Zoning; Creates federally-dominated Regional Planning Bodies with no representation from the people being regulated.) Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force: Interim Report

    ·  2011 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Healthy Watersheds Initiative (HWI) National Framework and Action Plan. The HWI is intended to protect the nation’s remaining healthy watersheds, prevent them from becoming impaired, and accelerate restoration successes. Plan (Similar complementary approaches also have been adopted by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the Departments of the Interior and Commerce – National Fish Habitat Action Planhttp://www.fishhabitat.org/ (regional Fish Habitat Partnerships, regional habitat planning)and the U.S. Forest Service – Watershed Condition Framework).

    ·  Inter-Agency Forum on Climate Change Impacts & Adaptations March 21, 2011

    ·  Rural Economic Vitalization Act (REVA) Introduced in Congress – bill would buy out public lands grazers using third party funds

    ·  DHS drafts ‘environmental justice strategy’

    ·  NOAA Environmental Satellites Win Funding

    ·  2011 Sustainability and the U.S. EPA (NAS report)to provide an operational framework for integrating sustainability as one of the key drivers within the regulatory responsibilities of EPA: Adopt comprehensive Sustainability Framework to identify options, assessments  and analyses that cover the three sustainability pillars (social – including health, environmental, and economic), as well as trade-off considerations into its decision making. The experts say they found the legal authority for EPA to foster sustainable development without further congressional approval in the wording of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, or NEPA. The study says the law, the cornerstone of U.S. environmental policy, declared that the “continuing policy of the Federal Government” is to “create and maintain conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations.”

    Colorado Water Transfer | lisaleaks

    ·  2012 USDA Announces Funding for Water Quality Markets

    ·  2012 BLM to Use State, Regional Data in Identifying Wildlife Corridors, Crucial Habitat

    ·  2012 Rep. Hastings Guest Opinion: Ocean policy reaches far beyond the sea

    ·  2012 FICOR Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation (FICOR) was established through President Obama’s America’s Great Outdoors initiative (AGO) to promote recreation and improve coordination among federal land and water management agencies. (Press Release)

    ·  National Strategy Proposed to Respond to Climate Change’s Impacts on Fish, Wildlife, Plants   Public Review Strategy document; Strategy Fact Sheet ;  Proposed strategies and actions along with checklists to monitor progress are organized under seven major goals in the Strategy: (1) conserving and connecting habitat; (2) managing species and habitats; (3) enhancing management capacity; (4) supporting adaptive management; (5) increasing knowledge; (6) Increasing awareness and motivating action; and (7) reducing stresses not caused by climate change.

    ·  Executive Order 13600–Establishing the President’s Global Development Council

    ·  USFWS lays out its Climate Change Strategy for wildlife, ecosystems, people and economies.The draft strategy is available for public review and comment through March 5, 2012

    ·  Obama Administration’s “We can’t wait” policy

    ·  2012 US State Dept. Rio 20 website; The Greening Diplomacy Initiative: Leading by Example

    ·  2012 Interagency Trade Enforcement Center established by E.O.

    ·  White House Conference on Conservation

    ·  Secretary Salazar and Rebecca Wodder “America’s Rivers” Rivers Chat (Youtube) Secretary Salazar signed a Secretarial Order that establishes “national water trails” as a class of national recreational trails under the National Trails System   Act of 1968.

    ·  USFWS proposes regulations to comply with implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora by incorporating provisons adopted at the Conference of the Parties (CoP14 and 15) Federal Register Volume 77, Number 46 (Thursday, March 8, 2012)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 14200-14223]

    ·  WICP/ACWI Sustainable Water Resources Rountable; Building a Smarter Planet:Innovation in Smarter Water Managment; SWRR brief; SWRR website; Sustainable Water Resources Preliminary Report, September 2005 ;  Kranz, R., S. Gasteyer, H.R. Heintz Jr, R. Shafer, and A. Steinman. 2004. Conceptual Foundations for the Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable. Water Resources Update. 127:11-19.(USFS co-chair)

    ·  EPA Sustainable Water Infrastructure: Better management, full cost pricing, efficiency, watershed-based approach

    ·  Obama Administration Establishes White House Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities; Exec. Order

    ·  2012 U.S. Water Partnership

    ·  2012 Southwest Climate Assessment Report Review; Estimated Effects of Climate Change on Flood Vulnerability of U.S. Bridges; Tidally adjusted estimates of topographic vulnerability to sea level rise and flooding for the contiguous United States”

    ·  Treaties under consideration by the Administration and Senate for signature and ratification: International Criminal Court; Law of the Sea; Small Arms Treaty;   U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC): Video briefing

    ·  Law of the Sea Treaty: McConnell Toomey Isakson Commit to Vote AGAINST – Portman Ayotte Uncommitted!; Congress needs to tell Law of the Sea Treaty to get lost; UN General Assembly September 17, 1997 Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly (see item 36 Oceans and seas- implements Agenda 21 Chapter 17     – 36(b) All Governments to implement General Assembly resolution 51/189 of 16 December 1996, including the strengthening of institutional links to be established between the relevant intergovernmental mechanisms involved in the development and implementation of integrated coastal zone management. 2011 Presidential Executive Order 13547 to unilaterally implement a new National Ocean Policy; Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force: Interim Report; (House Natural Resources Committee) Chairman Hastings Calls on Obama Admin. to Provide Transparent Answers to Outstanding Questions, Disclose Documents on National Ocean Policy Prior to Imposing Final Implementation Plan

     

    UN Agenda 21 California

    California NGOs, universities and organizations

     

    California Global WarmingSolutionsAct | lisaleaks

    AB 32


    http://www.ca-ilg.org/AB32-SB375LegalAnalysis#recording
    AB 32 and SB 375 Legal Analysis Resources

    The Institute for Local Government has prepared a legal analysis of Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (sometimes known by its legislative identity: SB 375) explaining how this law specifically affects local agencies.

    The Institute has also prepared a legal analysis of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (sometimes known by its legislative identity: AB 32) explaining how this law affects local agencies as it relates to sustainability and greenhouse gas emissions reduction.

    These documents are available for download at right under Documents & Resources.

    On September 8, 2010, the Institute hosted a webinar on the legal aspects of SB 375 (the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008) and AB 32 (the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006).

    Download at right the PowerPoint slides of the webinar. Webinar Slides; AB32 Legal Analysis_11-23-10; SB375 Legal Analysis_11-23-10

    Click here to view the webinar recording.  http://www.ca-ilg.org/AB32-SB375LegalAnalysis#recording

    Transform’s SB375 Fact Sheet

    ClimatePlan SB375

    AB 857Analysis; The Opportunity of the Environmental Goals and Policy Report and AB 857: A State Vision of Sustainabile Development

    SB 391 ; (Analysis)

    SB 732 ; Strategic Growth Council

    SCAG California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) Fact sheet

    Western Climate Initiative
    On February 26, 2007, Governors Napolitano of Arizona, Schwarzenegger of California, Richardson of New Mexico, Kulongoski of Oregon, and Gregoire of Washington signed an agreement establishing the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), a joint effort to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and address climate change. Since that time, the governors of Utah and Montana, as well as the premiers of British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec (not shown above) have joined. An additional 14 jurisdictions participate as observers, including the U.S. states of Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Nevada, and Wyoming; the Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan; and the Mexican border states of Baja California, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Sonora, and Tamaulipas. In the Initiative’s Memorandum of Understanding, WCI members agreed to jointly set a regional emissions target and establish a market-based system—such as a cap-and-trade program covering multiple economic sectors—to aid in meeting this target. In August 2007, the Western Climate Initiative announced its regional, economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions target of 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, or approximately 33 percent below business-as-usual levels. The regional target is designed to be consistent with existing targets set by individual member states and does not replace these goals. Covered emissions include the six primary greenhouse gases identified by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. In September 2008, the WCI released Design Recommendations for a cap-and-trade program; beginning in 2012, the program will cover emissions from electricity and large industrial and commercial sources, and it will cover emissions from transportation and other residential, commercial, and industrial fuel use beginning in 2015. In July 2010, the WCI Partners released the Design for the WCI Regional Program, a comprehensive strategy designed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, stimulate development of clean-energy technologies, create green jobs, increase energy security, and protect public health. It is a plan to reduce regional GHG emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and is the culmination of two years of work by seven U.S. states and four Canadian provinces. It builds on the recommendations for a regional cap-and-trade program that the Partners released in September 2008. The WCI builds on work already undertaken individually by the participating states and provinces, as well as two earlier regional agreements: the Southwest Climate Change Initiative of 2006, which includes Arizona and New Mexico, and the West Coast Governors’ Global Warming Initiative of 2003, which includes California, Oregon, and Washington.
    website

     

    LOCAL

    • Legacy, The Landscape ConnectionVision Map
    • The Siskiyou Project (Siskiyou Wild Rivers)
    • Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands – “Siskiyou Crest” Monument Proposal America’s First Climate Refuge
    • College of the Siskiyous Sustainable Communities Program
    • Transition US (An international re-localization and community sustainability movement called “Transition Network” – Transitioning from Oil Dependence to Local Resilience)
    • Transition 101
    • Shasta Commons (transition town)
    • Mt. Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center Regional Conservation Plan
    • Klamath Corridors –http://www.brunswickme.org/planning/ruralsmartgrowth/rbsg.Final.Report.revised.1.08.04.pdf (very slow download)  “Noss (1987), however, argues in favor of corridors by noting that natural systems are far more connected than those heavily shaped by humans. It is with this argument and the abundance of information regarding the perceived benefits of corridors that corridor projects have been proposed around the world. Examples of existing regional wildlife corridor projects in North America include the Klamath Corridors in the Klamath National Forest (Pace 1991), the Rio Grande Wildlife Corridor along approximately 450 miles of that river (Harris and Scheck 1991), and the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative (Barker 1997).
      “The Klamath Corridors Project was developed by the Klamath Forest Alliance, a coalition of grassroot environmental and community organizations located in and around the Klamath Forest on the California/Oregon border. The project is based on the premise that the most effective way to discourage effects of forest fragmentation is to retain or re-establish natural connectivity. The project makes maximum use of existing reserved (public or otherwise protected) land, since these areas tend to be the largest blocks of unfragmented habitat in a region, and uses corridors that consist of entire drainages and ridgelines. ”
    • 1992 the World Conservation Union declared the Klamath-Siskiyou to be an Area of Global Botanical Significance,
    • 1992-1995 Freedom.org Klamath/Siskiyou Region – The IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) has declared this area to be of Global Botanical Significance, one of seven such areas in North America and 200 worldwide. An effort is being made to designate the area as a UN Biosphere Reserve, according to The Wildlands Project. The NGO coordinating the work is the Klamath Forest Alliance; Reed Noss, author of The Wildlands Project, was selected to direct the work. The project seeks not only to develop a successful bioregional plan for Klamath/Siskiyou, but also to develop methods for planning and implementation that are transferrable to other regions. The area covers approximately four million hectares, about one-third in Oregon and the balance in California. The project is funded by the W. Alton Jones Foundation, the Foundation for Deep Ecology, The Wildlands Project, the U.S.D.A. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    • 1995, work began on an ambitious Klamath-Siskiyou Biodiversity Conservation Plan, sponsored by the Siskiyou Regional Education Project of Cave Junction, in partnership with the World Wildlife Fund.
    • 1997 The First Conference on Siskiyou Ecology introduction to the Proceedings of the First Conference on Siskiyou Ecology by Art Kruckeberg and Frank Lang; Research in the Siskiyou and Klamath Mountain Regions;  petition sent from the conference to President Clinton, calling upon him to preserve “for posterity the principal values of biodiversity, ecological stability, and aesthetic enrichment which the Klamath-Siskiyou Province represents.”
    • 1999 Noss and Strittholt A Science-based Conservation Assessment for the Klamath-Siskiyou Ecoregion; Full reportThe Sikiyou Regional Education Project paid for by W Alton Jones Foundation. 
    • 2001 (WorldWildlife Federation, Noss) Klamath-Siskiyou Forests Recommendations
    • 2001 Roadless proposal Map of the Klamath National Forest; Six Rivers; Shasta Trinity ; Modoc; Rogue River
    • 2002 Importance of Roadless Areas in Biodiversity Conservation in Forested Ecosystems: Case Study of the Klamath-Siskiyou Ecoregion of the United States, James R. Strittholt, Dominick A. DellasalaAlso, small roadless areas were an important component of the roadless-areas conservation assessment. For the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion, roadless areas and designated wilderness provide an important foundation upon which to develop a comprehensive regional conservation strategy.
    • 2003 A Conservation Visions for the Klamath Basin ; The Klamath Basin Coalition ; Protected Areas Map
    • 2003 Klamath – Siskiyou Private Lands Conservation Assessment (CBI)  identified “19 private land focus areas within the Klamath-Siskiyou that contain high conservation value based on an unweighted analysis of the various conservation data sets. Second, we offer the private lands GIS database with full instructions on how to query specific conservation data sets and how to produce alternative models for the region.” (WWF)
    • 2004 The Nature Conservancy Klamath Mountains Ecoregional Assessment
    • 2004 CA Wilderness Coalition Developing a Habitat Linkage Network for the North Coastal Basin and Klamath-Siskiyou Regions of Northwestern California
    • 2005 California’s Most Threatened Wild Places (WWF)
    • 2005 Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Restoration Program; Annual Report
    • 2006 Applying nature’s design: corridors as a strategy for biodiversity conservation  (Siskiyou National Monument – a wildlife highway for the Klamath-Siskiyou Ecoregion)
    • “Landscapes and Fire & Klamath-Siskiyou Nat’l Monument”(Video) Landscapes and Fire & Klamath-Siskiyou Nat’l Monument (ban on grazing) National Center for Conservation Biology and Policy
    • Pacific Forest Trust BLM Land Acquisition Adds 900 Acres to Oregon’s Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument to Biodiversity (Pacific Forest Trust)
    • Pacific Forest Trust – They have purchased 5,000 acres thusfar from “willing sellers” within the boundaries and have already transferred more than half of these to federal ownership in the National Monument.
    • 2007 California Wildlife Action Plan;    Chapter on the Klamath
    • National Park Service Klamath Network Inventory and Monitoring 
    • Index of Ecological Integrity IEI
    • Phase III Vital Signs Plan
    • 2009 the Strategic Habitat Conservation Executive Oversight Committee (EOC); Recommendation of a National Geographic Framework – The intent of this exercise is to provide guidancerelative to building capacity and geographically focusing efforts to implement landscapescale conservation (Strategic Habitat Conservation) throughout the country; Recommend a scaleable geographic framework that appropriately aggregates Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) for landscape-scale biological planning and conservation design for both terrestrial and aquatic species. The Columbia River Basin, the Chesapeake Bay, the Klamath Basin, Everglades, will continue to be handled from a policy perspective, regardless of the geographic framework produced by this team. In other words, existing nationally significant partnerships and collaborative efforts will continue to operate regardless of where LCR boundaries occur.
    • 2010 The SECURE ACT Basin Report Klamath River
    • Klamath Basin – National Center for Conservation Science & Policy The Climate Leadership Initiative March 2010 Concludes: The presence of a Basinwide governance structure (such as an advisory council) could facilitate costeffective climate change preparation planning. Cross-Basin governance is critical, especially for water, forest, and other resources that cut across multiple political boundaries.
    • Of 150,000 acres above Upper Klamath Lake, the government and The Nature Conservancy have taken nearly 100,000 acres of private farms and ranches, and converted them into wetlands. One ranch at a time
    • 2011 Scty. Salazar announces announced that the Bureau of Reclamation is providing WaterSMART funding for studies in the Klamath River basin. The basin studies will incorporate the latest science, including engineering technology, climate models and innovation. The projects will be cost-shared with the non-federal partners and will include basin-specific plans that recommend collaborative solutions to help meet water demands and foster sustainable development. Cooperative Watershed Management Program Phase I ; Basin Study Framework Through the Basin Study Program, Reclamation will partner with basin stakeholders to conduct comprehensive studies to define options for meeting future water demands in river basins in the West where imbalances in supply and demand exist or are projected. Reclamation will collaborate with willing states and local entities on a 50/50 cost-share basis to conduct the studies. Basin Studies will identify basin-wide water supply issues that could potentially be resolved with changes to the operation of water supply systems, modifications to existing facilities, development of new facilities, or non-structural changes. The studies will incorporate the latest science, engineering technology, climate models and innovation. The desired outcomes are basin-specific plans recommending collaboratively developed solutions that will help meet water demands and foster sustainable development, and leading to congressionally authorized feasibility studies. Analysis will include impacts of climate change and  how existing water and power infrastructure and operations will perform in the face of changing water realities, such as population growth and climate change, including an analysis of the extent to which changes in the water supply will impact Reclamation operations and facilities as defined in §9503(b)(3) of the SWA: a) the ability of Reclamation to deliver water; b) hydroelectric power generation facilities; c) recreation at Reclamation facilities;  d) fish and wildlife habitat; e) applicable species listed as an endangered, threatened, or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); f) water quality issues (including salinity levels); g) flow and water dependent ecological resiliency; and h) flood control management. 3) Development of options to improve operations and infrastructure to supply adequate water in the future. 4) A trade-off analysis of the options identified, findings and recommendations as appropriate. Such analysis simply examines all proposed alternatives in terms of their relative cost, environmental impact, risk, stakeholder response, or other attributes common to the alternatives. The analysis can be either quantitative or qualitative in measurement.

    Projections of water demands may include demands for agricultural, municipal, environmental, and recreational water uses, or other uses. Projections of water supply and demand will consider all potential water sources, including both groundwater and surface water.

     

    Sustainable Agriculture

    The California Continued Resource Investment Strategy Program CCRISP (California Legacy program) The California Legacy Project

    Pacific Forest Trust

     

    GENERAL

     

    Agenda 21 Treaty on the Horizon; The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the International Council for Environmental Law (ICEL) have released their fourth Draft of the International Covenant on Environment and Development. (entire document here) This document was designed from the beginning to convert the “soft-law” non-binding Agenda 21 into firmly binding global law — enforceable through the International Criminal Court and/or the dispute resolution features of the Convention on the Law of the Sea; DICED is UN’s Environmental Constitution for the World; Proposed UN Environmental Constitution For The World Would Establish An Incredibly Repressive System Of Global GovernanceAlabama Adopts First Official State Ban on UN Agenda 21; The people of Alabama acting through their elected representatives — not UN bureaucrats — have the authority to develop the state’s environmental and development policies, the official synopsis of the law explains. Therefore, infringements on the property rights of citizens linked to “any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama” are also prohibited under the new measure. Tennessee Senate Joins House in condemming UN Agenda 21; United Nations Agenda 21 bill passes Legislature; Agenda 21: Is The U.S. On The Verge Of “Takeover”?; Agenda 21 Becomes a Major Issue [See webpage] ; CSPAN Archives President Bush 1 addressed reporters following his participation in the Earth Summit work session. He outlined his views on the U.S. role at the Summit, economic and environmental policy, and took questions from reporters.; United States Congressional Record January 19, 1976, page 240, Representative Marjorie S. Holt (Maryland):“Mr. Speaker, many of us recently received a letter from the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia, inviting members of Congress to participate in a ceremonial signing of “A Declaration of Interdependence” on January 30 in Congress Hall, adjacent to Independence Hall in Philadelphia…A number of Members of Congress have been invited to sign this document, lending their prestige to its theme, but I want the record to show my strong opposition to this declaration….It calls for the surrender of our national sovereignty to international organizations. It declares that our economy should be regulated by international authorities. It proposes that we enter a “New World Order” that would redistribute the wealth created by the American people….For example, it states that ‘The economy of all nations is a seamless web, and that no one nation can any longer effectively maintain its processes of production and monetary systems without recognizing the necessity for collaborative regulation by international authorities.’ How do you like the idea of “international authorities” controlling our production and our monetary system, Mr. Speaker?”

    First Global Effort to Fight Environmental Crime Takes Shape To advance compliance and enforcement regimes, Nagai is looking towards the World Congress on Justice, Governance and Law for Environmental Sustainability to be held in Rio de Janeiro this June ahead of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, known as Rio+20. Outcome document; “With UNEPs leadership, an international institutional network should be established, with the engagement of the World Congress partners and other relevant organizations, and under the guidance of selected Chief Justices, Heads of Jurisdiction, Attorneys General, Chief Prosecutors, Auditors General, eminent legal scholars and other eminent members of the law and enforcement community”; (DELC)

    2012 Rio 20+ official site June 20-22:  Leaked document reveals Rio+20 sustainable development goals Nations will be asked to sign up for 10 goals and promise to build green economies at this summer’s earth summit draft document; “We reaffirm the need to strengthen international environmental governance within the context of the institutional framework for sustainable development, in order to promote a balanced integration of the economic, social and environmental pillars of sustainable development,”; The Future We Want –  Youtube; Minutes of closed-door retreat on Rio + 20 ambitions; Zero Draft and Sustainable Development Goals; Issues – briefing papers; Regional, national and local level governance for sustainable development; Q&A: North-South Divide Looms Heavily Over Rio+20 Summit;Green Groups Urge Obama to Attend Rio+20; Will Rio+20 Spark a Green Revolution?; U.N. Chief Disappointed Over Deadlocked Rio+20 Negotiations; Mass Extinctions in the Cards Absent Urgent Action; COP 10 Decision X/2 – Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020; Aichi Biodiversity Targets; Implementation of Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, including the Aichi Biodiversity Targets; Key Elements of the Strategic Plan 2011-2020, including Aichi Biodiversity Targets; SCP Governance, Sustainable Consumption and Production Governance: A Guide towards Rio+20; Governance Papers ; A Pocket Guide to Sustainable Development Governance; Consumption driving ‘unprecedented’ environment damage: UN; We are living way beyond our means.; Ban Ki-moon calls for Rio+20 to replace GDP with sustainable development index; It’s Happening, but Not in Rio -We are using 50 percent more resources than the Earth can provide; if we all lived like Americans or Europeans, we would need three planets to support us. Rio conferees mull $1,325 ‘green tax’ on U.S. families; John Kerry and His First Cousin: Both Pushing Hard for the U.N. Climate Change Agenda; Godfather of Global Green Thinking Steps Out of Shadows at Rio+20; Rio+20: Greens Concede Defeat As Developing Nations Reject Green Agenda; Report: UN classifies climate change agenda; Rio+20’s expensive wish list over a decade, U.S. citizens would be required to contribute well over $1 trillion to U.N. sustainability schemes. Statement 61 helpfully pronounces that “urgent action on unsustainable patterns of production and consumption … remains fundamental in addressing environmental sustainability”; Warnings Resound as World Leaders Gather at Rio+20; Rio+20 Negotiators Report ‘Progress,’ NGOs Call It ‘Weak’ ; RIO+20 Earth Summit: Disappointments with lack of progress, dismay with final document ; Rio+20 The Landscape Approach The use of remote sensing, resource monitoring, and spatial analysis are part of landscape science and provide the tools to communities to assess the impact of their actions on a rural landscape. ;
    Big Green Exposed: Journalist Blows Whistle on Deception, Destruction; The Real Agenda Behind UN “Sustainability” Unmasked ; UN Sustainability Summit Exposed: Big Business, Dictators, and NGOs ; Despite Setbacks, UN “Sustainability” Agenda Marches on After Rio+20

    Can the President Legislate?

    George Mannina’s testimony Before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs Oversight Hearing on “Empty Hooks: The National Ocean Policy is the Latest Threat to Access for Recreational and Commercial Fishermen” March 22, 2012 testimony on Executive orders violating the separation of powers set forth in the U.S. Constitution. watch hearing webcast 27:13-32:25, 40:50-44:11, (Rep. Duncan 1:01:19-1:05:47); 1:07:30-1:11:07; 1:29:46-1:34:30; 1:34:40-1:36:36;

    President Obama's Executive Order 13547 Agenda 21

    Obama CompliesWhat Is Agenda 21

    President Obama’s Executive Order 13547 issued July 19, further extends federal power, embraces global governance, diminishes the rights and privileges of individuals, and brings the United States into compliance with Agenda 21, Chapter 17.6, which says:

    Each coastal State should consider establishing, or where necessary strengthening, appropriate coordinating mechanisms (such as a high-level policy planning body) for integrated management and sustainable development of coastal and marine areas….”

    2011 Presidential Executive Order 13547 to unilaterally implement a new National Ocean Policy (Lacks Congressional Authorization); Unilateral Action by the Obama Administration; Imposes Ocean/Coastal   Zoning; Creates federally-dominated Regional Planning Bodies with no representation from the people being regulated.) Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force: Interim Report

    Loving v. United States (94-1966), 517 U.S. 748 (1996)

    Sub-committee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands United States House of Representatives   – Armstrong comments or here for recent oversight field hearing on “Explosion of Federal Regulations Threatening Jobs and Economic Survival in the West” held in Elko, NV  (Additional Information on Social Conditions not included in comment) ; Siskiyou County Comments; Forest Service defends road closures at hearingWitnesses Call for Increased Public Participation, Transparency in Federal Land Management Decision-Making Process; National Parks, Forests & Public Lands Subcommittee to Hold Field Hearing in Elko, NVThe National Forest System was created to ensure that future generations would have working forests that would serve multiple objectives.  Unfortunately, over time, the role of the U.S. Forest Service has shifted away from upholding this original intent.  In recent years we have seen efforts to limit accessibility and multiple-use in forests and on other federal lands, as evidenced by an onslaught of rules, regulations and administrative overreach.  The field hearing in Nevada will provide an opportunity to examine this issue more closely and see what impact it is having on local communities and industries.  It will also provide local stakeholders with an opportunity to share their insights on these regulations and propose how they might be modified to better serve the needs of communities like Elko and others throughout the country,” said Subcommittee Chairman Rob Bishop (UT-01). Hearing page

     

    SEE

    MONUMENT

    WILDERNESS

    ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

    CONSERVATION EASEMENTS

    Environmental Resources on the Internet; Eco-Net; Environmental Web Directory; Ecotopia Links; California Groups;  A Digest of the A&T (Alternative and Transformational) movement(s) A Chronicle of the Gaian Cultural Transition [ individuals who “believe that the whole earth is in a period of transition for the homocentric Industrial Culture based on self-interest, survival of the fittest, and materialism to an ecocentric Gaiain Culture based on belonging, cooperation, community and mutual respect.”]

    Donna Holt Campaign for Liberty – Sustainable Development

    Global Government Lecture by Henry Lamb given to the 20th Annual Meeting of the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness held in Colorado Springs, CO; July 2002.

    Land Use Control – What Is Agenda 21

    Sustainable Development | ICLEI Global

    1992 US House Agenda 21

    ‘Thought Crimes,’ HR 1955 Passed

    ·         The Smart Growth Fraud

    I Spy on Salem    : “The Great Federal Land Grab (Part 2)       Show Archives – I Spy Radio Show.

    Show 2-22 (June 2, 2012): “The Great Federal Land Grab (Part 1)

    CSPAN video Dr. Michael Coffman Rescuing a Broken America

    Global Governance 2025

    Global Governance At a Critical Juncture

    Lecture presented by Henry Lamb at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness held in Colorado Springs, Colorado; July 2002.

    Tea Party shows featuring Coffman

    FEB  6    http://teapartymedia.net/20110206/index.htm audio

    FEB 13   http://teapartymedia.net/20110213/index.htm audio

    legislative luncheon with Tom Deweese and Karen Budd-Falen

    Tom Deweese at the Constitutional Sheriff’s Convention

    Agenda 21 rally Sacramento, CA Sept 19, 2011 on Vimeo

    Agenda 21 Creeps Into California Land Use Policy (video)

    Who decides how to use public lands?

    Rosa Koire Behind the Green Mask

    Glenn Beck interviews Rosa Koire

    GBTV Agenda 21

    Ridin’ Point Columns 5/6/11 ; 5/13/11; 5/20/11; 7/19/11

    UN; Aspects of Sustainable Development in the United States: Institutional; Economic; Social; Nat Res.AGENDA 21 RE – sisqtel.net

     I highly recommended this book: Working Across Boundaries

    “Government occurs when people with formal, legal authority make plans and take action. In contrast, governance is what happens when citizens and groups (often including government agency officials) work together to plan and act based on their shared goals.”

    ‘Community economic development is a classic example of a “transboundary” issue. There is no single authority that, acting alone, can effectively address community and economic development issues. These issues transcend the boundaries we’ve created—jurisdictional, functional, and sectoral boundaries. Community leaders looking to make a difference in terms of community and economic development, therefore, must learn to work across boundaries. With that in mind, I would like to recommend an excellent book that is somewhat of a primer and even a user’s guide to leading regional, transboundary efforts.

    Working Across Boundaries is aimed at practitioners, presenting “an array of practical and tested strategies and techniques” for regional collaboration. The book begins by identifying “a gap in governance” created by the mismatch between jurisdictional and institutional boundaries and the “territory” of the economic, social, and environmental issues we face. The authors focus primarily on land use and environmental issues, since that is where most of their experience is. However, the principles discussed in the book apply to essentially all kinds of regional initiatives. The authors outline the strengths and weaknesses of a continuum of regional arrangements, from informal networks, to more formal partnerships, to regional institutions.

    After establishing the case for regional collaboration and outlining the various institutional forms it can take, the remainder of the book is a how-to, organized around “principles of effective regional collaboration” organized within a four stage model of diagnose, design, take action, and evaluate. The diagnostic stage is about determining the need for cross-boundary collaboration. Here leaders “identify the compelling issue or catalyst” and “determine if there is a constituency for change.”

    Next, a process is designed to fit the needs of the situation. The design phase involves determining “who should convene and lead the effort,” mobilizing “the right people,” mutually defining the region “to match the place, problem, and people,” and developing an organizational strategy.

    The third phase of a regional collaboration initiative involves formulating and implementing actions. The three principles that guide this phase are facilitating “scientific and joint learning” (which incorporates joint issue framing and deliberation), developing action plans, and “translating vision into action.” A particularly useful take-away from the discussion of taking action is the authors’ “seven habits for effective implementation.” a list of important insights culled from experience that separate successful collaborative efforts from the many more failed ones.

    The final phase of regional collaborative governance is to “evaluate, learn, and adapt.” The principle here is to “learn together as you go forward and adapt as needed.” McKinney and Johnson present a very useful discussion on how to evaluate regional collaborations in terms of both process and outcomes.

    Working Across Boundaries concludes with discussion (including examples) of four different models of regional governance for land use or natural resource issues, and advice to “move both the theory and practice of regional collaboration forward.” The book is very readable and includes many vivid, illustrative case examples. I highly recommend it to anyone working on regional issues such as community economic development, land use, and natural resources management. Also recommended is a fantastic companion website, created by the authors, hosted by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (the publisher of the book). Working effectively across boundaries—across jurisdictions and across sectors—is critical for communities to succeed in today’s globalized world. This book is an excellent resource for those involved in these efforts.

    Resources:

     

     

     

    Advertisements