Sunday,
January 28,
2001
eco-logic report
This final segment deals with Roger Soles' answer to three charges. We will respond to each.
Claim number 5:
The U.S. MAB Program operates without legal approval.
Soles' answer:
U.S. Mab is a voluntary, interagency effort which operates within the existing authorities of participating agencies. No specific law exists for the U. S. MAB Program.
Federal agencies were directed by the "Memorandum for Heads of Certain Departments and Agencies, Subject: U.S. Participation in UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere Program," Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, March 9, 1979, to participate in the U.S. Mab Program.
The reply of the agencies is in "Memorandum to Director, Office of Management and Budget, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Subject: U.S. Participation in the Man and the Biosphere Program (MAB)"; From the Assistant Secretaries of the Departments of State, the Interior and Agriculture and Chairman of the U.S. MAB National Committee, November 13, 1980.
Our response:
Soles admits that the only authority for the U.S. MAB program consists of inter-agency Memoranda. What Soles did not address is the fact that on December 28, 1983, President Reagan announced the United States would withdraw from UNESCO at the end of 1984, citing UNESCO's "excessive politicization, long-term lack of budgetary restraint, and poor management."
The U.S. has not yet rejoined UNESCO. The State Department requested $22 million for three-months UNESCO dues for FY2000, but the White House budget office did not include it for fear of irritating Congress.
Why has the U.S. MAB Program continued, despite the U.S. withdrawal from UNESCO?
The only rational answer is that the agency administrators chose to continue following UNESCO's management policies. Buried deep within the State Department's budget, the U.S. MAB Program escaped careful Congressional scrutiny. Not until the introduction of the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act did many Congressmen learn that such a program even existed.
The U.S.MAB program is not authorized by law; federal agencies are bound by membership agreement in the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to promote and comply with IUCN principles, which are, in fact, the very same principles incorporated into UNESCO's land management policy. Congress is poorly informed about the implications and consequences of these land management policies. Therefore, until such time as Congress authorizes participation in UNESCO's MAB, the program should be terminated.
Claim number 6:
"Creeping UN-ism" - That the undefined "transitional or cooperation zone" of a biosphere reserve gives (the UN) license to expand the protected area of a biosphere reserve and establish land use controls over that area.
Soles' answer:
Most biosphere reserves are U.S. National Parks or National Forests. If the protected areas were to be expanded, it would take several specific acts of Congress.
Our response:
How many specific acts of Congress did it take to get the Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve to grow from the original 517,000-acre Smoky Mountains National Park, into the area now indicated on the USMAB map that stretches from Birmingham to Roanoke?
From one side of the State Department mouth, comes the claim that only the protected areas are biosphere reserves; from the other side, comes the map showing the buffer zones and zones of cooperation, all of which constitute the biosphere reserve. The particular reference depends upon the audience to whom the reference is directed.
The plan for expanding biosphere reserves, is set forth in the Global Biodiversity Assessment, which is the instruction book for implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity. The global network of biosphere reserves is the starting point for implementing the treaty. The plan calls for "rehabilitation" and "restoration" of "fragmented" areas in the buffer zones in order to restore them to wilderness status, suitable for inclusion in the "protected" areas. By so doing, the protected areas continually grow. Buffer zones then must reach into the zone of cooperation, pushing the outer limits of the zone of cooperation even further. Each biosphere reserve is designed to "grow" and eventually be connected by "corridors" of wilderness that are surrounded by buffer zones. This is the plan described in Reed Noss' "Wildlands Project" identified in the Global Biodiversity Assessment, as "central" to the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
To achieve the objectives of the MAB program, federal agencies use existing land use regulations. Land use on private property is restricted selectively by employing one or more of dozens of regulations. The Clean Water Action Plan, initiated by Vice Presidential decree, has enormous implications for land use restrictions on private property within buffer zones of biosphere reserves. By claiming jurisdiction over the flood plain of virtually every stream in the country, the administration is effectively taking control of land use. Combined with regulatory powers that flow from existing environmental law, federal agencies can, and are, expanding buffer zones and zones of cooperation around all 47 American biosphere reserves.
A classic example of using existing law to achieve UNESCO biosphere objectives is the lawsuit filed by the Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project, a project of the Foundation for Global Sustainability. The suit alleges that the Fish & Wildlife Service has failed to set aside "critical habitat" for 31 of the 34 endangered species identified in North Carolina. By designating critical habitat on private or public land, the federal government acquires the power to control activity that may occur on that land.
The lawsuit filed by Green Advocacy Groups (GAGs) may appear to pit the environmentalists against the government. Often the opposite is true. The procedure is known as a "friendly suit," designed to bypass Congress and use the courts to achieve predetermined objectives. For example, in this suit, the Fish & Wildlife Service could negotiate areas for designation to which the plaintiff agreed, and then a judge could issue a "Consent Decree," which effectively orders the government to do what the GAGs want done. This process was used to actually rewrite the definition of a wetland back in the 1980s. The Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project is only one of at least 26 GAGs working as the Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition, to advance UNESCO's plan for the Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve. A detailed analysis is available in eco-logic, July/August 1998.
Claim number 7:
What is unreasonable about Congress being involved in the biosphere reserve nomination process?
Soles' answer:
Nothing. Indeed, Congressional involvement in the process of the recognition of biosphere reserves would probably be desired by the U.S. MAB program. However, to tie up Congress with the naming of areas, most of which in the future will likely be non-federal lands, which are nominated by their state park authorities or the private organizations or individual owners, seems unwarranted.
Our response:
Two sides of the same mouth? Nothing frightens U.S. MAB more than Congressional involvement. MAB and the State Department have opposed Congressman Don Young's bill to give Congress involvement in the process (HR883). The President has vowed to veto the bill if it reaches his desk.
Note that in the future, Soles expects nominations to come from states and private organizations. That is a reasonable expectation since in the past, it was the U.S. MAB program that initiated nominations within states, then claimed that the effort was a "local initiative." A study conducted by the University of Missouri proved this to be the case with nomination of the Ozark Biosphere Reserve. It is not difficult to get states or private organizations to do the bidding of federal agencies that control the flow of money. In UN lingo, it's called "financial incentives and disincentives." In the real world, it's "you do what we say or we'll stop your money, or cancel your grants," as the case may be.
The Nature Conservancy, and hundreds of similar organizations, are eager to do the bidding of federal agencies which supply millions of dollars in grants. It is worth noting again, that The Nature Conservancy partially funded the development of the Wildlands Project, and is intimately involved in land acquisition and in directing the local effort to transform buffer zones and zones of cooperation into the wildlands vision. The Nature Conservancy receives millions of dollars each year from the federal government.
Without direct Congressional oversight of the U.S. MAB program, federal agencies are free to impose whatever land use restrictions they choose, and call it whatever they wish. The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act is the most promising legislation to date to give Congress the power it needs to protect American soil. Without it, federal agencies are little more than willing administrators for UNESCO's policies.
Copyright (C) 1999 Freedom.org, All rights reserved