“March global temperatures were coolest since 1999” states the headline.
Good news, phew, maybe we are all not going to die after all and the CO2 obsession is over.
“The average global temperature for March 2012 made it the coolest March since 1999…..”
“….yet the 16th warmest since record keeping began in 1880″
Damn. So we are all still doomed. The SIXTEENTH warmest in 132 years.
Wow, we are doomed.
Religion. Money grabbing. Politics. Not science.
I thought this was a nice graph that shows the entire extent of the “we are all going to die from evil CO2 warming, send us your money” hysteria created by Mr Hansen.
And on the subject of Hansen, this is a wonderful post from Steve Goddard.
Remember, Hansen is an activist. Felix Dodds is an activist. Richard Black and the BBC are activists. The RIO coup is coming. Time to end the gravy train once and for all.
One word. Politics.
I simply do not buy the “ooh it was all just a communications mess up, honest. We are innocently changing the way we process the data and nobody told anyone when it was happening…” line from Walt Meier NSIDC.
“Come next spring, we’re just going to have a lot of thin ice that formed over the autumn and winter. That’s the stuff that melts out easily the next summer,” Serreze says. “So there’s a feedback at work here, and that feedback is getting stronger with time.”
Mark Serreze, who heads the National Snow and Ice Data Center, speaking in 2011.
Well, with that sort of balanced, objective open mind at the top, it is obvious that the “shift” in data, and the sudden lag in publishing results over the past two weeks is all simply a change in processing of the data.
It’s nasty left wing politics at work backed by money and a bunch of people who have backed themselves into a corner.
That line will NEVER cross the “normal”, it will not be allowed to happen.
Not convinced? Look at the timing. What are the chances that as the trend is about to hit undeniable “normal”, they change the processing methodology? Why introduce basically a 4 day delay in the data being available, you know to “smooth out the wiggles”.
In part one, I outlined how an unelected front for many NGO’s, Stakeholder Forum, is trying to influence Governments and the UN in an attempt to see their own world vision implemented through RIO+20. In this part I will explore how a BBC journalist, with the knowledge of the BBC, participates in the that process.
“With Basque government support, Stakeholder Forum hosted the UNEP Global Environmental Outlook Outreach working group in San Sebastian, Spain, on 4-6 October 2007.” – Stakeholder Forum Network 2015 Publication
After reading part one you will know how Stakeholder Forum seeks to influence UNEP through a close relationship that involves bascially organising and controlling the “Outreach Group” who directly advise UNEP on their communication strategy relating to their key “Global Environmental Outlook” reports. These reports are digested by Governments, so the Outlook Group directly influences discussion at national Government level as well as within the UN. GEO4 was their last report, GEO-5 is their next one:
“The GEO-5 full report will be launched in June in time for the celebration of World Environment Day and the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development Rio+20.”
Continuing to quote from the Network 15 PDF:
“The Outreach group is comprised of NGOs, media and other stakeholders; and it advises UNEP on its outreach strategy for the Global Environmental Outlook 2007 report. This includes outreach in both the traditional forms of media as
well as new ones, such as the Internet. The team also aims to engage stakeholders in promoting and using the information in GEO-4 (the Fourth Global Environment Outlook) to ensure political decision-makers are much more aware of the state of the world’s environment.”
So the Outreach Group advises UNEP and it looks at how unelected NGO’s can better use the information within the GEO reports to pressure Governments. In the Network 2015 document there is a photo of the Outreach Group at the San Sebastian meeting:
There, behind an Felix Dodds and Esther Larranaga, is Richard Black. BBC journalist, a publicly funded broadcaster with a duty to remain impartial, in the middle of an advisory process that seeks to influence Government decisions. There with the full knowledge and agreement of the BBC.
The Donostia Declaration.
Sounds a bit like a Jason Bourne sequel doesn’t it? Well our “International Man Of Mystery” Richard Black certainly seems to be living an exciting life, not firing guns, but certainly helping to make and load the unelected NGO’s influence-bullets.
Before we go any further, I would like, again, to remind readers of the wording of the Royal Charter:
“The BBC must do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output.”
BBC Royal Charter Agreement 2006.
Just to make it crystal clear, climate change and political environmentalism are without doubt “controversial subjects”. Being part of the process of unelected advocacy attempting to influence governance is clearly compromising that impartiality. How can anyone who has to be impartial remain so if they get that close to the process and the people within it?
The Donostia Declaration , according to Stakeholder Forum on their Earth Summit website, came about from a workshop they held as part of the propaganda efforts to get a RIO+20 conference:
“13th – 14th November 2008: Stakeholder Forum with support of the Basque Government hosted an informal multi-stakeholder workshop on 13th – 14th November 2008 in San Sebastian to kick-start discussions on the realisation of an Earth Summit in 2012.
The workshop convened representatives of governments, civil society, intergovernmental organisations and UN agencies to discuss the challenges that lie ahead. Nitin Desai, former Secretary General of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 contributed to the discussions via video-link, as did John Scanlon, Principal Advisor to the Executive Director at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
All participants expressed overriding support for the hosting of a Rio+20 Earth Summit in 2010, and the discussions and proposals that arose in the meeting were captured in the ‘Donostia Declaration’ – a document making the case for a Summit and providing recommendations as to its focus.
The Donostia Declaration has since been translated into five languages and is one of the only documents produced that was based on interaction between governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. Enshrined within the Donostia Declaration is the principle of multi-stakeholder dialogue and a common vision.“
Wow, so they basically created an NGO common vision bible.
The Declaration called for RIO+20. It also asked for the summit to make decisions on “Global Governance”, “Global Goals”, “A Global New Green Deal”, “Mobilisation”, “Education For Sustainable Development” and finally for the complete implementation of “Agenda 21”.
So how did the Donostia Declaration influence policymakers? This, from Felix Dodds’ own Earth Summit blog (which should really carry a sub-heading of “The world is all about Felix”) tells us:
“The twenty fifth session of UNEP Governing Council finished on the 20th of February . One of the really interesting discussions around the 2012 agenda was initiated by the South African Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk in a speech at the plennary session on International Environmental Governance (IEG). He outlined a roadmap on IEG:
“The first milestone will be when we meet in a year from now, in February 2010. At that meeting we should ideally adopt a Ministerial Declaration on the principles and objectives (on IEG) that will guide our further work in the run-up to Rio plus 20.”
Other Ministers in the plennary and the working groups supported the use of Rio+20 for bringing a final decision on International Environmental Governance. Stakeholder Forum in the Ministeral Round Tables outlined three outcomes they hoped for on IEG – these included support for the South African inititiative but expanded to include sustainable development governance. The second outcome Stakeholder Forum wanted to see was support for the setting up of an adhoc Ministerial Working Group to prepare for the next UNEP GC in 2010 while keeping an eye on the climate change negotiations in December at the UNFCCC. This is to ensure it has a positive impact on international environmental governance. The final issue raised was to ask the UN Secretary General to consider setting up a High Level Panel or Commission on the Global Green New Deal.
All delegates at the UNEP GC were given a copy of the Donostia Declaration which was the outcome from a workshop on Earth Summit 2012 in November. If you want to follow developmengts on 2012 this can be done at the Earth Summit 2012 web site.”
Stakeholder Forum tried to influence decisions on “Environmental Governance” through ministerial round tables and it gave copies of the Donostia Declaration to all UNEP delegates in an attempt to influence their decision relating to the holding of, and agenda for, a 2012 Rio+20 summit. This document was a result of the “workshop” held in San Sebastian in November 2008.
So who was at that workshop? And did they truly represent “governments, civil society, intergovernmental organisations and UN agencies” in stature and numbers worthy of releasing a grand call-to-arms seeking to influence a UN proposal for a RIO+20 and its agenda? Lets have a look:
David Wollcombe – Peace child
Nuha Ma’ayt – General Fed. Of Jordanian Women
Roy Cabonegro – Suswatch
Jan Gustav Strandenaes – ANPED (The Northern Alliance for Sustainability)
Richard Black – BBC
Michael Strauss – Earthmedia
Remi Parmentier – Varda group
Muhammad Al-Sayrafi – FoE Qatar
Pam Puntney – UMICH (University of Michigan)
Luc Bass – (Appears to be an Ex-Belgian Governmental advisor)
Itziar Eizagirre Irureta – Mirua 21
Oliver Deleuze – UNEP
Richard Scherman – IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development)
Daniel Ziegerer – Swiss FOEN (Federal Office for the Environment)
Xabier Ezeizabarrena – (Can’t get much, but he appears to have been a “candidato del Partido Nacionalista Vasco”)
Felix Dodds – Stakeholder Forum
Hannah Stoddart – Stakeholder Forum
Virginia Prieto – Stakeholder Forum
Derek Osborn – Stakeholder Forum
Now I don’t know about you, but that does not strike me as a group of people who have the knowledge and stature to draft grand declarations that can be used to pressure the UN and national Governments about sustainability, governance and climate change? I see four people from Stakeholder forum, various NGO’s, a couple of low-level greenie academics and….ah, a BBC journalist.
So Richard Black was invited and attended. He was part of the workshop that created the Donostia Declaration. Was that all he did at that workshop?
Well, actually no.
An internal draft workshop agenda tells us that he was far more than just a face in the room:
“Media – Lessons from the WSSD and the Obama Campaign – Richard Black, BBC Environment Correspondent”
Reading the actual Donostia Declaration document is also revealing:
“The workshop was organized by Stakeholder Forum. It was made possible by the financial support of the Basque regional Government and logistical support by IHOBE, IT consultancy Proyelia, the International Court of Environmental Arbitration and Conciliation Office of San Sebastian, and the office of the San Sebastian Film Festival. In particular I would like to thank Richard Black, Ibon Galarraga, Rémi Parmentier, Derek Osborn, Virginia Prieto, Hannah Stoddart, Michael Strauss, Genevieve Verbrugge and David Woollcombe, for the help they have given to organise the workshop and the production of the Donostia Declaration. ”
Richard Black, BBC journalist, was thanked for the help he gave in organising the workshop and producing the Donostia Declaration. Let me repeat that:
Organising the workshop and producing the Donostia Declaration.
“I’m just a patsy” – Lee Harvery Oswald.
BBC correspondent Roger Harrabin was widely criticised for his activities that attempted to influence and shape reporting of climate change in the media. Richard Black, people assumed was a poor dumb ideologist who parroted the message because he was allowed to, thanks to the activities of Harrabin.
However, in my various posts I have shown clear evidence that Richard Black is actually more influential and more partisan than Harrabin. Richard Black is directly involved in training people to influence policy globally. He helped to create advocacy documents, organised sessions and meetings. He advises, broadcasts and writes through the direct influence of his close relationship with the unelected NGO-front Stakeholder Forum and its power-seeking head-honcho, Felix Dodds.
Richard Black has, through clear evidence outlined in my posts, teamed up with Stakeholder Forum on these occasions (and there of course could be many more that I have not been able to find evidence for yet):
- In 2007 contributing to the UNEP outreach strategy, organised and run by Stakeholder Forum. The stated aim of that group being to give ammo to NGO’s.
- In 2008 helping to produce the Stakeholder Forum tool for NGO lobbying, “The Donostia Declaration” and helping to run and organise the workshop that led to its creation.
- In 2009 presenting at Stakeholder Forums “Working with the Media” training day.
- In 2009 Helping SF at CSD-17 by mentoring for them with the help of the BBC world service.
- In 2009 and 2010 presenting at SF’s “Learning to Lobby” training days.
- In 2011 moderating a session at the Stakeholder Forum organised “Bonn Conference”.
That is not it. I have information about Richard Black’s current relationship with SF as we approach RIO+20. This post has dealt with the historical relationship. My next will take you further down the rabbit hole.
Richard Black’s relationship with Felix Dodds and Stakeholder Forum is long and intimate. His input helps to shape the output of Stakeholder Forum, which in turn is being used by many unelected advocacy groups to push for a RIO+20 and now they have it, to get radical social and economic change. None of them elected, accountable or transparent.
Richard Black. A poor patsy who just writes his stuff and takes flak from climate sceptics?
I ask that you forward this to the BBC and its Trust and ask them for answers. Send it to your MP and ask them how this aids the BBC upholding its obligations under the Royal Charter Agreement. Spread this far and wide.
“ In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
A guy called Dave just posted a comment over at the Planet Under Pressure – Live post. It was eloquent, passionate and well constructed. I think it is worth posting here, with my own reply to Dave’s comment below it.
“This may be my only posting – I live at sea level and the world I’ve known for 60 years is going to hell in a handbasket, faster than I can explain the changes to my grandchildren. How do I explain that while the Titanic is only minutes from hitting the iceberg, most people are drunk, dancing or arguing on the back deck, or simply watching the BBC?
My sense is that most “activists” who contribute so many frequent keyboard strokes to this website simply have too much time on their hands, or have no real community they can participate in building. Some may have economic reasons for keeping up a steady flow of bafflegab that has yet to introduce much new evidence of scientific malfeasance. To me it seems like the time for the eloquent punditocracy is over, the time for action is upon us. Our grandchildren might ask if we were merely blogging and tweeting while the Earth burned and drowned. We’d do better to be using our muscles at something real like growing our own food, or helping out around town instead of waiting for the govt. we despise to do it for us, using taxes we dont want to pay.
Of course we are terrified of the “New World Order”, or any other creeping symptoms of fascism that can co-opt the widespread angst about how we’ve crapped in our nest and have to live with the sh*t for eons to come. We are terrified of governance in general when we have so many examples of utterly dysfunctional and corrupt governments on the national scale, and now the added spice of ascendant religious factions trying to bring their own end-times prophecies to fruition.
But we still have science. Hard, cautious and validated scientific evidence. Scientists even know how to co-operate and achieve amazing things. But we as a species are in Overshoot, and are still climbing out on the branch that is inevitably going to break. We have indeed created the Anthropocene in the blink of an eye, we are indeed hurtling towards the Bottleneck of biodiversity with a brick on the accelerator pedal, and the consequences of such folly are never good.
Planet under pressure? Surely we little monkeys can’t be the problem, the Earth is so big and the Sun is even bigger. Oh dear, how we underestimate our hubris! How we distort the scales of time and space. Not only are there 7 billion ambitious and competitive people and their 4 billion hungry livestock, there are also 3.7 billion internal combustion engines on fire, several tens of thousands of power stations and half a billion fossil-fuelled fishboats chasing far fewer fish. There are standing armies of 400 million brainwashed men, armed and ready for the kill with weapons that must be used before they become obsolete. Add it all up and Nature, let alone Peace and Compromise, doesn’t really stand a chance when push comes to shove. We are like yeast in the vat just before the final doubling. We are at 11.59 on the doomsday clock, and hey….”all is well”.
Carry on folks, I’m sure there are plenty of messengers like me for skeptics to shoot at. Just make sure the target isn’t just an ugly image in the mirror.”
First of all, thank you for you comment Dave. I welcome opposing views in a debate. That stands in stark contrast to blogs like Skeptical Science and Real Climate who have been caught altering, deleting, changing context and ignoring the comments of people who have challenged them in their blog posts.
Let me tell you about me.
25 years ago, at the tender age of 14 I stood up in front of my parents when the 6 o’clock news was on and started to rant. I could not understand my fathers skepticism of the reports that global warming was the greatest threat to humanity ever. I ranted that the ice was melting, the polar bears would die and I would not have a future. The planet had a decade before it would become dangerous, unstoppable and overhwhelming for our society. For a decade I held that view and was a nailed down left-wing, Labour-voting, trade-union supporting socialist environmentalist.
Then I realised that it had been 20 years since that rant I had made aged 14, and I could see precious little changing. Sea level rise was little different in pace than it had been since the end of the last ice age. Antarctic ice extent was increasing. Arctic sea ice was decreasing, but the polar bear population was stable or increasing past 25,000 animals. I looked closer at the claim the Arctic was the “canary in the coalmine” and began to realise that we have absolutely no idea how thew Arctic sea ice grew or shrunk before the mid 1970’s. I realised, with no rational thought process whatsoever, that Arctic sea ice was assumed by the experts and the advocate to basically remain completely static – with no evidence to support that assumption.
Everywhere I looked I saw evidence of a slightly warming world, but without the catastrophe I had been promised happening. I looked at the global air temp record and saw that there was an equally steep rise between 1910 and 1940, when scientists said that the human fingerprint on climate has only been there since the late 1970’s. I wondered how the Viking artifacts on Greenland were only just beginning to be uncovered beneath the tundra. I wondered how high-Alpine archaeology was only just becoming possible due to retreating glaciers and yet finding evidence of high alpine settlement in the bronze age.
I wondered how the first IPCC report showed a Medieval Warm Period, yet subsequently, every dataset seemed to seek to suppress it. I looked at Michael Mann’s “hockey Stick” which eradicated it completely. And on, and on.
I wondered how people like Hansen had proclaimed gobal apocalpyse when the PDO, for example, was not identified until 1997.
I live at sea level as well Dave, have done all my life. I sail coastal, eustary and rivers. I have seen the water rising inland a small amount over that time. But nothing that is not in line with the water rise since the last ice age. I read that where I live in Eastern England, that the land is sinking as we rebound from the ice age as well. I see that part of that water rise is due to channeling of rivers that used to drift of their own accord. I see nothing terrifying happening down here at sea level. I just bought a house here as well, 400 yards from the river. I suspect I will be typing blog posts from it in 30 years without wearing wellington boots and I suspect my 2 year old son will be selling it on fine when I pass away in a few decades time.
So Dave, what has happened at sea level where you are (Canada)? You made the point, so it must have relevance.
What are the changes that are happening so fast that you cannot explain them to your grandchildren? Are these changes unique, unprecedented and dangerous? Or are most of them projections, calculations and guesses? What has actually come to pass that threatens your grandchildrens future?
“Our grandchildren might ask if we were merely blogging and tweeting while the Earth burned and drowned.”
It sounds to me like you are having a late-mid-life crisis Dave. Technology is wonderful, it has given us tha ability to debate, gain knowledge and develop society. It has created global communication and broken down despotic regimes. Yet you dismiss it as a distraction. Is the earth burning? Really, you believe that? You think the Earth has never been this hot ever?
I would suggest Dave, that the reason life has exploded, that food is abundant and that you can consider growing your own food with ease is due precisely to that warming in the past 35 years. The alternative of course, if you believe that CO2 drives climate, to suck it all out again and increase the chance of catastrophic crop failures. Just maybe a bit of warming has done us good, whatever has driven it.
And is that warming solely down to man? I think you will find very few people who deny we affect our planet. BUT, we who are still unconvinced by the doomsday scenario, do find the suggestion, based upon questionable, idelology-driven science, that 392ppm of CO2 is going to kill us all quite frankly laughable when you consider the physics and the chaotic Earth system. We worry that the climate “consensus” is nothing more than an engineered situation that has allowed now powerful NGO’s an unbalanced voice. Climate change as a debate has given the hardline ecoloons a Trojan horse into the heart of global decision making. Unelected, unaccountable, unbalanced.
That is scary. More scary to me than a couple of mm’s of sea level rise a year, half of which is natural and another quarter of which is down to the sinking of a tectonic plate where I live. Tuvalu? Doing fine. Population has doubled since 1985 mind you so I can see why they are making contingency plans to get people off the island. Global warming has offered them a get out of jail card for not managing their resources or population.
You mention the sun. The sun that climate science claims does not affect the Earth’s temperatures. The constant sun that is irrelevant to the current warming.
So go and have a look at this page. Enter UK, Annual and mean daily maximum temp. Wow. Scary. Look how temps have gone up in the past couple of decades. Must be down to us. Couldn’t be the sun.
Now change the parameter from maximum temp to sunshine. What’s that you see? sunshine hours have also increased at a similar pace over the same timescale? Wow. Must be a coincidence. Let’s think about it though, more sunshine recorded over a timescale like that means consistently less cloud cover. Which must be absorbed by the sea and raise land temps in some way.
Now you know that Dave, go and have a read about Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory and how it is gaining momentum. Go and find out just how well climate models have dealt with clouds. genuine science and data. Ignored, marginalised and ridiculed by the scientists whose starting position for every paper they write is “man is warming the planet through CO2 emissions”.
Now can you see why I am becoming healthily sc(k)eptical Dave? Probably not, but then you seem scared of the climate bogeyman and also appear to be ensuring that you scare the hell out of your grandchildren as well.
Let’s hope that they are not visiting you grave in a few decades time at sea level and asking themselves how an evidently intelligent man lost the ability to be objective.
Dave you have complete right-of-reply. Post it as a comment and I will paste it into a post.
Stakeholder Forums latest PR exercise in ramping up the support for their Coup D’etat at RIO+20 is “Planet Under Pressure”.
No debate, very few scientists. Has more in common with a rally than the new democracy Felix Dodds is calling for. However, as an example of what environmental democracy would look like, it is spot on.
You can watch the propaganda here:
I may not be able to resist sticking a pin in the balloon in the next day or so…
This is the first part of a two-part article that will expose the truth about Richard Black’s involvement in the global agenda of Stakeholder Forum. Part one will focus on Stakeholder Forum. Part two will go into detail about how Richard Black has aided their cause, with the full knowledge of his BBC bosses. I will also show how he has been paid by them and will be paid by them to help them achieve their goals at RIO. This is not to be taken lightly and I ask you to spread this far and wide.
As regular readers will know I have been investigating the links between Richard Black and a group called Stakeholder Forum. I have been quite surprised as to how little this group have been mentioned in the climate skeptic world. Stakeholder Forum seem to have flown under the radar somewhat. For example, in this post at WUWT there is only one mention of Stakeholder Forum. That is one mention in one of more than 100 comments, with no mention of them in the article itself, despite the fact that RIO +20 has their fingerprints all over it….if you look hard enough.
Stakeholder Forum – A Brief History.
Stakeholder Forum was turned into a lobbying powerhouse by Felix Dodds. His bio can be read on Wikipedia, although everything you need to know is contained in the first sentence of the text:
“Felix Dodds is an author, futurist and activist. He has been instrumental in developing new modes of stakeholder engagement with the United Nations, particularly within the field of sustainable development. Mr. Dodds is the Executive Director of Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future. ”
Dodds moved away from his activities within the UK Liberal party in the mid-1980’s:
“After serving the NLYL, Dodds published his first book, Into the Twenty-First Century: An Agenda for Political Realignment. His work called for closer cooperation between Green members on the left in British politics. Contributors to the book included: Jonathon Porritt, Jean Lambert MEP, Peter Hain MP, Simon Hughes MP, Michael Meadowcroft MP, Sara Parkin, Petra Kelly Green MP in Germany, Jeremy Seabrook, Peter Tatchell and Hilary Wainwright. In 1988, Dodds co-founded Green Voice, which worked for two years to create a dialogue between Green members on the left of UK politics.”
Once Dodds had seeded himself within the UK’s green-scene, he then moved onto bigger fish:
“Since 1990, Felix Dodds has been active within the United Nations network, originally as Director of the United Nations Environment and Development, UK Committee (UNED-UK). This organization evolved into the UNED-Forum, eventually leading to its successor organization, Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future. These organizations played a critical role in mobilizing support for the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. In the months leading up to the highly publicized meeting, Stakeholder Forum’s Earth Summit web site was used by stakeholders as the primary non-UN online resource.”
You get a sense of what Felix Dodds’ world view is when you read this paragraph describing his manipulation of democracy at the UN, by pressuring for more and more input from unelected stakeholder groups:
“Dodds co-chaired the NGO coalition at the UN CSD from 1997 to 2001, and is credited with proposing to the UN General Assembly in 1996 the introduction of Stakeholder Dialogues at the United Nations. Dodds has played a pivotal role in their development since that time, and is a keen advocate for the involvement of stakeholders in the decision-making process and implementation of global agreements. He has argued that we are in a process of transition from representative democracy – Madison democracy to a participatory democracy – Jeffersonian Democracy. Dodds contends that at present we are in a period of stakeholder democracy, and trying, at various levels within society, to develop the structures, vocabulary and institutions to embed this phase. He firmly believes that such developments will strengthen world democracy.”
So Felix Dodds is not just about saving the animals, climate and resources. Felix is about changing the global agenda to suit the ideology and bidding of unelected pressure groups. Felix it appears wants nothing short of a new sort of democracy governed by NGO’s and UN bodies created from NGO agendas. He is doing this through what used to be called “Stakeholder Forum For A Sustainable Future”, but is now simply called “Stakeholder Forum”.
The Agenda Benders.
Stakeholder Forum is the primary reason why there will be a RIO+20 “Earth Summit” in June 2012. The unofficial name of “Earth Summit” is one created and used by Stakeholder Forum. It is NOT an official UN title.
This is how SF describe their intervention:
“Stakeholder Forum played a critical role in generating support for an Earth Summit in 2012, organising a series formal and informal meetings, multi-stakeholder and governmental workshops to provide a space for discussion and exchange on the possible focus of an Earth Summit. Stakeholder Forum’s original multi-stakeholder workshop on Earth Summit 2012, held in San Sebastian, resulted in the Donostia Declaration which outlined the case for a Summit as well as providing recommendations of focus areas. ”
So how exactly did they “play a critical role” in generating support for RIO+20? You are going to have to keep up here I’m afraid!
I think it is important to note first that the original RIO conference set out the UN’s “Agenda 21”, which is basically an attempt to alter how the world approaches environment issues. It goes well beyond that, in terms of being the original framework on which Felix Dodds and others are building to push for a change in global governance, Dodds’ “participative democracy” (participative if you happen to be part of an NGO of course).
UNEP is the UN’s Environment Program. Its mission is:
“To provide leadership and encourage partnership in caring for the environment by inspiring, informing, and enabling nations and people’s to improve their quality of life without compromising that of future generations.”
UNEP, according to Wikipedia covers a swathe of issues:
“Its activities cover a wide range of issues regarding the atmosphere, marine and terrestrial ecosystems, environmental governance and green economy. It has played a significant role in developing international environmental conventions, promoting environmental science and information and illustrating the way those can be implemented in conjunction with policy, working on the development and implementation of policy with national governments, regional institutions in conjunction with environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). UNEP has also been active in funding and implementing environment related development projects.”
UNEP is, thanks to the IPCC, due for an upgrade in terms of its power:
“Following the publication of Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in February 2007, a “Paris Call for Action” read out by French President Jacques Chirac and supported by 46 countries, called for the United Nations Environment Programme to be replaced by a new and more powerful “United Nations Environment Organization (UNEO)”, also called Global Environment Organisation now supported by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, to be modelled on the World Health Organization.”
So you can see, that UNEP is a powerful body whose reach encompasses all the major environmental topics, including climate change. However, it is deemed not powerful enough and a campaign is underway to convert it to a much larger and more powerful body similar to the World Health Organisation (WHO). Felix had this to say:
“United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has had an amazing forty years helping to create our current environmental legislative framework, as well as acting as the global advocate for environment. Rio+20 outcomes should include upgrading UNEP into a World Environment Organization which brings together all the environmental conventions into a coherent structure.”
So Felix is right behind upgrading UNEP to the WEO and the associated increase in reach and power that would bring. It would bring, to be clear, reach and power for NGO’s and other un-elected, unaccountable groups. UNEP is influenced through the “Major Groups & Stakeholders” Forum. Stakeholder Forum directly influences that through helping to organise it, lobbying through informal meetings (as you will read in part two), writing papers and making speeches:
“On 19th February, Executive Director of Stakeholder Forum, Felix Dodds, gave a presentation to a wide range of Major Groups’ representatives on the expectations from Rio+20 and what actions are still required to secure a positive outcome at the Summit, at the UNEP Global Major Groups and Stakeholders Forum. The presentation also examined the many issues surrounding sustainable development governance and the green economy, including the recommendation of certain policies and changes in approach deemed necessary to ensure progress in these areas is achieved at the Summit.”
UNEP policy is shaped by its Global Environmental Outlook reports. GEO-4 was the last and GEO-5 will be out before RIO. The “Outreach Group” directly influences that report. You will therefore be unsurprised by now when you read this:
“Stakeholder Forum hosted the last meeting of the Fourth Global Environment Outlook (GEO-4) Outreach Working Group in San Sebastian from 4 to 6 October.”
There is nothing to suggest Felix and co would have less influence if the WEO was implemented, quite the contrary it appears.
ICE, ICE Baby….
ICE is a campaign to bring about an “International Court For the Environment”. It states its aims pretty clearly:
“In order to bring accountability to the current system, institutional reform is required. We need to integrate the decentralized environmental governance regime and provide an enforcement mechanism that holds both States and non-state actors to account. We need accountability – We need the International Court for the Environment.”
In simple terms, this is about creating a central court, like the War Crimes tribunal, to pass judgement over, well basically anyone, who has been deemed to have broken the laws that people like Felix Dodds, through the WEO and Agenda 21, have deemed so. It also says this on their website:
“Through its partnership with the Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future, the ICE Coalition has been able to publish articles on the news section of the website and to publicise the ICE concept as a direct contribution from civil society to the 2012 Earth Summit on sustainable development within the institutional framework for sustainable development.”
So ICE is directly working with Stakeholder Forum with the intent of creating a global environmental justice system. Felix Dodds wants a change in global democracy, a change in how the world acts and punishment for anyone who dares to deviate from his vision.
Stakeholder Forum is pushing for an increase in global environmental judiciary power through ICE. It is doing this through a decade long campaign to get a RIO+20 conference and then push the agenda. It is doing this through its SDG2012 programme:
“SDG2012 is Stakeholder Forum’s programme on Sustainable Development Governance (SDG) towards Rio+20.”
It may be a little unimaginitive of me, but quoting from the people themselves is the easiest way of showing just how far down the rabbit hole we are going here:
“Achim Steiner, director of UNEP, said that a WEO could be modelled on the WTO which has its own dispute resolution mechanisms. A WEO might be granted jurisdiction to refer cases to an ICE and indeed it might be provided that complaints intended to be referred to the ICE should first be referred to the WEO for consideration and investigation.”
“The UNEP and Stakeholder Forum organised a conference on Sunday 6th March 2011 in New York entitled: “IEG, Sustainable Development Governance and Rio+20: A Stakeholder Consultation”.”
“The ICE Coalition attended and made a presentation at the COP 15 at Copenhagen in December 2009 and sent some of its members as observers to the 2010 Bonn talks and Tianjin conference in order to follow the evolution of the negotiations. The ICE Coalition went to Cancun and participated in the COP 16. The Coalition had an exhibit space, participated in a side event and gave a presentation in a private ministerial event. The Coalition aims to deploy its campaign for the COP 17 which will take place in Durban in December 2011.”
In summary, Felix Dodds’ Stakeholder Forum are part of ICE and are pushing for global environmental governance. They are advising, influencing, organising for and working with UNEP. Stakeholder Forum also directly influences the UN CSD. It was instrumental in the agreement to hold a RIO+20 conference:
“Stakeholder Forum hosted a two-day multi-stakeholder conference on Earth Summit 2012 in October 2009 in Brussels. It was the first major event to be held in Europe to discuss a possible Rio+20 conference in 2012….In December the UN General Assembly agreed to the next Earth Summit in 2012” – Stakeholder Forum Annual Report 2009.
RIO+20 will attempt to make decisions on Global environmental governance through establishing ICE and either a more powerful UNEP or a fully-fledged WEO, which will enforce Agenda 21. It will discuss a “Global Green New Deal” to try to replace the current financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF. Stakeholder Forum has discussed a wealth redistribution framework through meetings with the New Economics Forum.
All pushed for, and shaped by Felix Dodds and Stakeholder forum. They organised the NGO and Government Workshops, lobbying training, meetings, radio and flyers – the whole kit and kaboodle to ensure that RIO happens and that its agenda and outcome is shaped by them.
It should be – Stakeholder Forum are basically attempting to shape an environmental Coup D’etat at RIO+20.