The UN and Property Rights

Where does the term sustainable development come from?

The term sustainable development was coined by the United Nations, Brundtland Commission and directly targets private property rights.

(In 2012, San Carlos, California's residents connected the dots between the UN, ICLEI (International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives) and their plan to usurp the sovereignty of our nations and restrict our property rights). Watch the full delegation below.

The land policy of the United Nations was first officially articulated at the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I), held in Vancouver, May 31 – June 11, 1976. Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report sets forth the UN’s official policy on land. The Preamble says:

“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….”

The Preamble is followed by nine pages of specific policy recommendations endorsed by the participating nations... Here are some of those recommendations:

Recommendation A.1

(b) All countries should establish as a matter of urgency a national policy on human settlements, embodying the distribution of population…over the national territory.

(c)(v) Such a policy should be devised to facilitate population redistribution to accord with the availability of resources.

Recommendation D.1

(a) Public ownership or effective control of land in the public interest is the single most important means of…achieving a more equitable distribution of the benefits of development whilst assuring that environmental impacts are considered.

(b) Land is a scarce resource whose management should be subject to public surveillance or control in the interest of the nation.

(d) Governments must maintain full jurisdiction and exercise complete sovereignty over such land with a view to freely planning development of human settlements….

Recommendation D.2

(a) Agricultural land, particularly on the periphery of urban areas, is an important national resource; without public control land is prey to speculation and urban encroachment.

(b) Change in the use of land…should be subject to public control and regulation.

(c) Such control may be exercised through:

(i) Zoning and land-use planning as a basic instrument of land policy in general and of control of land-use changes in particular;

(ii) Direct intervention, e.g. the creation of land reserves and land banks, purchase, compensated expropriation and/or pre-emption, acquisition of development rights, conditioned leasing of public and communal land, formation of public and mixed development enterprises;

(iii) Legal controls, e.g. compulsory registration, changes in administrative boundaries, development building and local permits, assembly and replotting.

Recommendation D.3

(a) Excessive profits resulting from the increase in land value due to development and change in use are one of the principal causes of the concentration of wealth in private hands. Taxation should not be seen only as a source of revenue for the community but also as a powerful tool to encourage development of desirable locations, to exercise a controlling effect on the land market and to redistribute to the public at large the benefits of the unearned increase in land values.

(b) The unearned increment resulting from the rise in land values resulting from change in use of land, from public investment or decision or due to the general growth of the community must be subject to appropriate recapture by public bodies.

Recommendation D.4

(a) Public ownership of land cannot be an end in itself; it is justified in so far as it is exercised in favour of the common good rather than to protect the interests of the already privileged.

(b) Public ownership should be used to secure and control areas of urban expansion and protection; and to implement urban and rural land reform processes, and supply serviced land at price levels which can secure socially acceptable patterns of development.

Recommendation D.5

(b) Past patterns of ownership rights should be transformed to match the changing needs of society and be collectively beneficial.

(c)(v) Methods for the separation of land ownership rights from development rights, the latter to be entrusted to a public authority.

The official U.S. delegation that endorsed these recommendations includes familiar names. Carla A. Hills, then-Secretary of Housing and Urban Development became George Bush’s Chief trade negotiator. William K. Reilly, then-head of the Conservation Foundation, became Bush’s Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Among the NGOs (non-government organizations) present, were: the International Planned Parenthood Federation; World Federation of United Nations Associations; International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); World Association of World Federalists; Friends of the Earth; National Audubon Society; National Parks and Conservation Association; Natural Resources Defense Council; and the Sierra Club.¹

These ideas came to America in the form of the Federal Land Use Planning Act which failed twice in Congress during the 1970s. Federal regions were created and the principles of the UN land policy were implemented administratively to the maximum extent possible. NGOs were at work even then, lobbying for the implementation of UN land policy at the state and local levels. Both Florida and Oregon enacted state Comprehensive Planning Acts. Florida created state districts and multi-county agencies to govern land and water use. Most states, however, were slow to embrace the UN initiative toward centralized planning and land management.

By 1992, the UN had learned to tone down its language and strengthen its arguments. The UN, working in collaboration with its incredible NGO structure, operating at the behest of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF); and the World Resources Institute (WRI), made sure that the decade of the 1980s was awash with propaganda about the loss of biodiversity and the threat of global warming.

The foundation for the propaganda campaign may be found in three publications published jointly by the UN and its NGO collaborators: World Conservation Strategy, (UNEP, IUCN, WWF, 1980); Caring for the Earth, (UNEP, IUCN, WWF, 1991); and Global Biodiversity Strategy, (UNEP, IUCN, WRI, 1992). These documents, along with Our Common Future, the report of the 1987 Brundtland Commission (UN Commission on Environment and Development) set the stage for Earth Summit II, the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

This conference produced Agenda 21, the ultimate plan of action to save the world from human activity. The document echoes the 1976 document on land use policy, though in somewhat muted terms. From Section II, Chapter 10 (page 84):

“Land is normally defined as a physical entity in terms of its topography and spatial nature; a broader integrative view also includes natural resources: the solid, minerals, water and biota that the land comprises. Expanding human requirements and economic activities are placing ever increasing pressures on land resources, creating competition and conflicts and resulting in suboptimal use of both land and land resources. It is now essential to resolve these conflicts and move towards more effective and efficient use of land and its natural resources. Opportunities to allocate land to different uses arise in the course of major settlement or development projects or in a sequential fashion as land becomes available on the market. This provides opportunities…to assign protected status for conservation of biological diversity or critical ecological services.”

Objective 10.5

The broad objective is to facilitate the allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to sustainable and integrated management of land resources:

(a) To review and develop policies to support the best possible use of land and the sustainable management of land resources, by no later than 1996;

(b) To improve and strengthen planning, management, and evaluation systems for land and land resources, by no later than 2000;

(d) To create mechanisms to facilitate the active involvement and participation of all concerned, particularly communities and people at the local level, in decision-making on land use and management, by not later than 1996.

Activities 10.6:

(c) Review the regulatory framework, including laws, regulations, and enforcement procedures, in order to identify improvements needed to support sustainable land use and management of land resources and restrict the transfer of productive arable land to other uses;

(e) Encourage the principle of delegating policy-making to the lowest level of public authority consistent with effective action and a locally driven approach.

Activities 10.7:

(a) Adopt planning and management systems that facilitate the integration of environmental components such as air, water, land, and other natural resources using landscape ecological planning… for example, an ecosystem or watershed;

(b) Adopt strategic frameworks that allow the integration of both developmental and environmental goals; examples of those frameworks include…the World Conservation Strategy, Caring for the Earth….²

Between 1976 and 1992 a new strategy for land use control was devised. It is subtle, sinister, and successful. Reread 10.6(e) above: “Encourage the principle of delegating policy-making to the lowest level of public authority consistent with effective action and a locally driven approach.” The reference to “public authority” here is not to elected city councils or county commissions. The reference is to newly constituted “stakeholder councils” or other bodies of “civil society” that consist primarily of professionals functioning as representatives of NGOs affiliated with national and international NGOs accredited by the United Nations. This strategy is becoming increasingly effective.

Earth Summit produced other documents which directly affect private property rights and land use: the Convention on Biological Diversity, which authorized the production of the Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA).

The GBA is a massive, 1,140-page document that supposedly provides the “scientific” basis for implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity and other environmental treaties. It discusses land use extensively (approximately 400 pages). Some of the more poignant revelations may be found in Section 11.2.3.13 (page 767):

“Property rights are not absolute and unchanging, but rather a complex, dynamic and shifting relationship between two or more parties, over space and time.”

Credits

After a few days, researching to find the references cited in the 2012 presentation to San Carlos Council, I came across This article. Originally written by Henry Lamb and published in the January/February 1997 edition of ECO Logic Magazine on page 8.

The article was edited by Kevin Allard with notes and links for the reader.

Henry Lamb

Henry Lamb was among several experts on Global Governance and published nearly 1 million words exposing the global agenda. Between 1994 and 2010, Lamb traveled the world attending United Nations conferences and disseminating the information to the public. His work is fundamental to the current land use issues we deal with every day and is directly relevant to motorized prohibitions on public lands. Lamb was among the first to expose the Federal Government and UN agenda to close roads on public lands in the 1990s.

Endnotes

1. Information here cited is from “Report of Habitat: United Nations Conference on Human Settlements,” Vancouver, 31 May – 11 June 1976, (A/Conf.70/15), personally photocopied from the archives of the UN Library at Geneva, Switzerland, December 6, 1996. (On file)

2. Citations from Agenda 21 are taken from Agenda 21: The United Nations Programme of Action From Rio, ISBN No. 92-1-100509-4, UN Publication-Sales No. E.93.1.11. Address inquiries to: Room S-894, United Nations, New York, NY 10017, Fax: (212) 963-4556.

3. The Global Biodiversity Assessment is published by the Cambridge University Press, ISBN No. 564316, and is available for $44.95 plus S&H by calling (914) 937-9600.

4. Sustainable America: A New Consensus is published by the U.S. Government Printing Office, Mail Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328, ISBN No. 0-16-048529-0.

5. “Draft Recommendations from the PCSD and Response Examples,” eco•logic, November/December, 1995, p. 13.

6. Our Global Neighborhood, The Report of the Commission on Global Governance, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 251-253.