The current New Zealand government has produced a raft of measures to implement the United Nations Agenda 21, including the draft Biodiversity Strategy, the Zero Carbon Bill, the Oil and Exploration Bill, and the One Billion Trees Fund.
In 1992 Agenda 21 was adopted in Rio de Janeiro at the UN Earth Summit Conference on Environment and Development. It is defined by the United Nations as a ‘comprehensive plan for action to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by organizations of the United Nations system, governments and major groups in every area in which humans impact the environment.’ New Zealand is signatory to this (ostensibly non-binding) international treaty with over 100 other countries.
‘The UN’s Agenda 21 is definitely comprehensive and global — breathtakingly so. Agenda 21 proposes a global regime that will monitor, oversee, and strictly regulate our planet’s oceans, lakes, streams, rivers, aquifers, sea beds, coastlands, wetlands, forests, jungles, grasslands, farmland, deserts, tundra, and mountains. It even has a whole section on regulating and “protecting” the atmosphere. It proposes plans for cities, towns, suburbs, villages, and rural areas. It envisions a global scheme for healthcare, education, nutrition, agriculture, labor, production, and consumption — in short, everything; there is nothing on, in, over, or under the Earth that doesn’t fall within the purview of some part of Agenda 21.’ (William Jasper, Your Hometown and the United Nations Agenda 21)
Agenda 21 is the culmination and ultimate expression of a number of UN Conferences and UN-drafted pacts and declarations to do with the place of humanity in the environment, and the management of humanity overall. Almost all of these have been signed by New Zealand. They are dominated by two assumed, overriding and non-negotiable values – debate of the first never arises, and of the second is never permitted:
- The precedence of ‘biodiversity’ over all other rights, even of human life;
- The non-negotiability of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative.
The United Nations vision includes the following priorities:
- High-density (forced) urbanisation
- Reduction or elimination of private property rights
- Reduction of population
or in brief: Agenda 21 in One Easy Lesson
The American Wildlands Project
The American Wildlands Project, (now calling itself the Wildlands Network) is an implementation of UN policies on biodiversity and human habitat. It proposes to set up to one-half of America into core wilderness reserves and interconnecting corridors, all surrounded by interconnecting buffer zones. No human activity would be permitted in the core reserves and corridors, and only highly regulated activity would be permitted in the buffer zones. Human settlement would be in high density cities. The purpose of the corridors is to allow large animals like bison to roam free, including migration across the continent.
Ratification of the United Nations Convention of Biological Diversity was defeated in the US Senate, when the concept of the Wildlands Project formed the bsis for the convention. A number of American states have taken steps to ban Agenda 21 and the local body network ICLEI, specifically set up to ensure implementation of Agenda 21 (most cities in New Zealand belong to ICLEI).
The principles of Agenda 21 and the Wildlands Project are being enacted by Local Bodies and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). People are jailed and/or heavily fined for interfering with the slightest trickle of water on their property; small towns are startled to find high-rise, high density developments out of all keeping approved; farmers and other rural dwellers are being forced off their land through taxation or zoning. Powers of eminent domain have been extended to allow councils to agree with developers to confiscate private land, in order to build pack and stack subdivisions, also used to take land for projects such as bike paths.
‘Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.’ Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project
Note: the term Agenda 21 is no longer used by the UN and governments, because of the negative connotations it has acquired. Instead they talk of sustainability and resilience: the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals are in fact Agenda 21 goals.
New Zealand has had a policy of preserving native forest, and protecting native fauna, and generally caring for the environment, independent of the United Nation. About 30% of New Zealand is forested, on public or private land – this is far more than most industrialised countries. National parks also include large tracts of non-forested land which are protected from development. Cities have extensive reserves. Many suburban sections in hilly towns like Wellington, even modest ones, have small tracts of native bush.
New Zealanders have a very close physical connection with nature and the outdoors, perhaps through pursuits like tramping, skiing, beach activities; for many people this connection is largely through time spent in their own backyards. Most New Zealanders live in houses of one or two stories with a garden, usually consisting of lawns, flowers, shrubs.
The effect of the implementation of Agenda 21 on lifestyle will be far more dramatic in New Zealand than in Turkey, for example, where even quite small towns consist of apartment buildings. It will also entail the loss of the eco-system provided by the suburban and small-town lifestyle.
For New Zealanders, Agenda 21 means the complete destruction of a way of life that most people see as positive.
The Biodiversity Strategy
New Zealand’s Department of Conservation (DOC) has produced a draft Biodiversity Strategy, which is a commitment under the Convention on Biological Diversity, signed by NZ at the Rio Earth Summit.
The proposed Biodiversity Strategy is the New Zealand version of the American Wildlands Project.
The strategy demands the ongoing expansion of reserved land and land where use is limited by its being dedicated to ‘biodiversity’; this will be achieved by increased ‘tools’ (regulations) to facilitate taking of private land or limiting the use of private land.
The draft is imprecise, repetitive and sentimental, and written in a hybrid English/Maori language clearly intended for distraction rather than communication – very popular amongst NZ government departments when they do not actually want their documents to be read closely. There is a paucity of science and of detail. The draft neither sets out what New Zealand is already doing to protect the environment, nor explains what needs to be done and why, nor provides options.
The draft emphasises the New Zealand love of ‘nature’, ‘Nature in Aotearoa is healthy, abundant, and thriving. Current and future generations connect with nature, restore it and are restored by it.’ While there is a a comprehensive list of outdoor activities, a notable omission is the home garden. New Zealand is described as an urbanised society
New Zealand is one of the most urbanised countries in the world. There is significant opportunity to restore nature in cities and integrate it into urban planning, which will, in turn, help reconnect urban dwellers with nature. P. 52
This extraordinary statement conveys an impression of a people living in high density cities like Singapore, nothing like New Zealand cities with their preponderance of single-use dwellings, private yards and abundance of greenery.
DOC’s vision for New Zealand by 2070
‘Our species, habitats and ecosystems (especially those that are currently rare
and threatened) are increasing, not declining, in number and extent, across
private as well as public land and in the sea’
Language and goals echo the Wildlands Project:
What is planned is ‘a complete network of biodiversity hubs across New Zealand […] Review current hubs/similar arrangements to establish what is most effective and what barriers may exist. […] If required, establish a national function to support establishment of hubs and provide coordination and oversight, such as a nationwide network of biodiversity hubs and connection to national and regional funders.’
Corridors and buffer zones
‘Eco systems will be connected from the mountain tops to the ocean depths’, involving ‘corridors for nature, linkages over landscapes, reducing fragmentation, considering externalities (p.51); ‘By creating ecological corridors and buffer zones and increasing the diversity of land use, a tapestry of ecosystems are being reconnected so they can function more efficiently as a whole landscape’. (p. 54)
Note: New Zealand does not have large land mammals like bison to utilise cross-country corridors: birds and butterflies use street plantings and private gardens as corridors just as much as, or even in preference to, indigenous forest.
Expansion of biodiversity areas – restoring biodiversity
The strategy aims to ‘restore biodiversity’ (p. 20), without defining what is meant by this goal decision. At the extreme, of course, all human inhabitants would depart, leaving New Zealand to revert to the avian paradise it once was. The Agenda 21 compromise is penning human beings in high-density cities, leaving most of the country zoned for ‘biodiversity’.
‘Our species, habitats and ecosystems (especially those that are currently rare
and threatened) are increasing, not declining, in number and extent, across
private as well as public land and in the sea […] Biodiversity is core to all decisions about land and water management, including on private land’ (p. 28); ‘private landowners
[…] are a crucial part of the system’ (p. 38); ‘Implement a consistent national approach to rates relief for covenanted and other protected private land’; ‘Many iwi, hapū and whānau have significant aspirations to play a greater role in managing biodiversity on public and private land’ (p. 43).
Expanding regulatory frameworks.
Biodiversity is ‘core to all decisions about land and water management’. To enforce this, and to facilitate taking or imposing restrictions on private land, more powers need to be given to local and central government.
‘Legal and regulatory frameworks are not achieving enough […] Beyond protected areas, such as on private land and in most of our marine environment, there are even fewer tools and frameworks available to ensure that biodiversity is protected’ (p. 16) ‘A mix of regulatory and non-regulatory tools should be used to achieve the best
outcome, recognising that incentives, regulatory guidance and backstops are important elements of an effective response’. (p. 29)
‘Mana whenua feel that they can genuinely practice their role as kaitiaki’. It is unclear whether this just another feel-good statement by DOC, or whether it flags Maori having a greater say over land use if, for example, requirements for resource consents are extended to suburban home-owners affected by ‘significant natural area’ designations.
A large percentage of New Zealand is already dedicated to habitats for indigenous species, who also make great use of our home gardens – do New Zealanders see as a priority an expansion of ‘biodiversity areas’ at all costs, and at the expense of all other land uses?
‘Priority should be given to conserving indigenous species over non-indigenous species when making management decisions.’ Always? How does this affect the Wellington Botanical Gardens? Home gardens? Pets?
Anthropogenic Global Warming / Climate Change
Many thousands of American and International scientists including some of New Zealand’s most senior have sent and are still sending (e.g. here and here) numerous petitions to heads of government, UN bureaucrats and the European Untion begging them to reconsider their allegiance to the anthropogenic global warming narrative.
All say pretty much the same thing:
- the climate has always changed,
- so called greenhouses gases – CO2, methane and nitrous oxide – have little or no effect on global warming,
- extreme weather events are not increasing, and
- resources would be better spent on real environmental issues.
Carbon dioxide: The human-generated portion constitutes about 3% of atmospheric CO2; New Zealand’s share of that is 0.1%. The government’s claim that its measure to reduce CO2 will do anything to stop the climate changing is patently ridiculous.
Methane: Methane is virtually irrelevant as a greenhouse gas, according to papers by Jock Allison, Tom Sheahen and Geoff Allison, emeritus professor of Auckland University
Methane ‘has such a low atmospheric concentration around 0.00018% and combined with it having such a narrow waveband in which it can absorb radiant energy, it is so irrelevant to global temperatures that calls for reductions in methane emissions are laughable’.
Sea level rise: global sea level data indicates a sea level rise of 1-2mm per annum, ie four to eight inches over 100 years. A careful analysis of measurements from the world’s best long-term coastal tide gauges, indicates that the global average rate of sea-level change, is just under +1.5 mm/yr (about 6 inches per century), and it is not accelerating. Members of the School of Surveying, Otago University and GNS NZ have analysed tide gauge records and vertical land movements for New Zealand, and found an average annual sea level rise of 0.9 mm over four main NZ centres (this slide from their presentation at the International Surveyors (FIG) Conference in Helsinki 2017).
See also: Top New Zealand Scientist Describes ‘Global Warming’ as Pseudo-Science: David Kear, former Director-General of NZ’s Department of Scientific and Industrial Research was mystified by the Ohope Council’s refusal to accept its own technical reports and local observation, to insist that the sea at Ohope beach was rising when it was in fact retreating.
Parallel measures to the Biodiversity Strategy
Oil Exploration Bill: on the back of the ‘climate change’ narrative, the New Zealand government introduced legislation to ban all new permits for offshore oil and gas exploration, as a move towards a zero emissions future. (In almost the same breath, the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has been castigating oil companies for the high price of petrol at the pump.
Zero Carbon Bill: The Bill provides for eliminating New Zealand’s carbon dioxide emissions completely by 2050. It also aims at a 10% reduction in biological methane by 2030 and a provisional reduction of between 24%-47% by 2050.
According the Bill’s Regulatory Impact Statement economic growth could slow by $5-12 billion per year over 2020 to 2050 – a loss of around $300 billion. Emissions-intensive sectors including farming ‘could see their output drop by 50 percent from current levels by 2050’.
‘The Prime Minister admitted in her first reading speech, that the harsh methane targets being imposed on farmers were not designed by New Zealand’s scientific experts, but by the UN’s highly politicised climate bureaucracy: ‘The only thing that we have – science based – is actually the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They undertook modelling that … said you would need to set a target between 24 and 47 percent.’ (Muriel Newman, The Controversial Zero Carbon Bill)
One Billion Trees Fund: The government is providing funds to encourage the planting of one billion trees by 2028. At least half of this is likely to be pinus radiata forest. According to Forestry Minister Shane Jones:
‘We have a strong base to build on, with the commercial forestry sector projected to plant half a billion trees in the next 10 years. […] This year, almost 7.3 million trees will be planted through various Ministry for Primary Industries schemes – about half of which will be indigenous species. […] The tree planting programme will benefit New Zealand’s provinces, our environment and our people – it is a big boost for the forestry sector and will create more jobs and training opportunities to provinces that have been doing it tough for a while now.’
Direct Grants from the One Billion Trees Fund are available to landowners, including private landowners, farmers and Māori landowners, to help with the costs of planting trees or assisting reversion to native forest. Funding is available for plantings of a minimum of an acre for native trees, and 5 acres for exotics. Thus the taxpayer is subsiding the conversion of fertile farmland to pinus radiata plantations.
The intention is to cover the countryside with wind turbines, solar farms and pinus radiata.
It is assumed that energy requirements previously met by fossil fuels will come from wind power and solar energy. That in itself is probably an impossible feat, but there is little discussion of the environmental implications. Aside from being an eye sore, wind farms are a threat to birds, bats and bugs, not to mention human health.
Motors are to be replaced by batteries. Wellington City Council has also scrapped its trolley buses, which were fed off the national grid, and replaced them with battery powered models. Whether New Zealand is able to dispose of used batteries economically and safely is questionable. It is also doubtful whether the rare earths, the very mining of which is questionable from an environment viewpoint, will be able to meet the demand if the whole world is relying on them for power.
Pinus radiata is hostile to flora and fauna, sours the soil when New Zealand soil and water are already acid, and large plantations are not always considered aesthetic.
How it works:
Rural New Zealand: Farming, a primary industry, is under enormous threat.
- Huge areas of fertile pasture land are being converted to pinus radiata forest, regardless of the ecological implications. The conversion will result in a net loss of jobs.
- Farmers are faced with the pressures to reduce methane.
- At the same time people worldwide are being told they should cut down on meat, or preferably give up eating all animal products, to save the planet. The UN proposes a special tax on meat consumption.
The effect of all these measures on the rural landscape, rural jobs and rural towns will be extreme – some towns will not survive.
The Cities: New Zealand’s major cities are not affected so directly by the legislation. However they all belong to the same organisations that were created to facilitate Agenda 21, such as ICLEI and 100 Resilient Cities, and the same Agenda 21 ethos prevails. Thus Wellington councillors claim that conversion of the city from leafy suburbs to apartment buildings is inevitable, despite greenfield options being available, despite the drop in natural increase, ie family sizes are very low, and despite New Zealand having a very low population density for a developed country. At a recent meeting a candidate kept referencing New York as role model for Wellington – a fairer comparison would be with a medium-sized American town. They are of course supported in this vision by the corporate press:
On the other hand biodiversity is paramount (eco-systems provided by the flowers and shrubs in home gardens, while much loved by birds and insects, do not count). Wellington has initiated a programme of designating ‘Significant Natural Areas’, which seems to consist of notifying startled Wellington city homeowners that a portion of their backyards, even whole sections that have been awaiting development for about 100 years, are now part of a Significant Natural Area, with implications for land use (from subdivision to house extension) and property values.
It is debatable whether Wellingtonians think that having such biodiversity areas that cannot be accessed by the public is a welcome trade-off, for trees being uprooted and bush-covered banks being torn down to enable high-density development. In any case the lesson is clear – plant exotic trees in your garden and keep mowing those lawns, because if you allow them to revert to bush, you could lose all rights and see the value of your property diminish.
In order to implement the Agenda 21 of UN bureaucrats, New Zealand politicians, local and national, are on course to destroy the rural sector, rural towns, the environment, and the New Zealand way of life. All this is on the back of the fallacious climate narrative and environmental priorities imposed from without, and without proper consultation with the New Zealand people.
Agenda 21 and the Forced Relocation in Stack and Pack Cities – forced urbanisation in China and the United States
‘The fact is, America became the wealthiest nation on earth in a very short time precisely because of the ability of every American to own and control their own property. Ownership produces equity – that is a process to build wealth. 60% of small businesses in America were financed by the equity in the owner’s private property. And eventually 60% of Americans were employed by companies that were financed in that manner. Private property ownership is the path to building wealth and eliminating poverty.’