Estratégia nacional de biodiversidade da nigéria e plano de ação

Publicações
Você pode usar os filtros para mostrar apenas os resultados que correspondem aos seus interesses.
Copie e cole este URL no seu leitor de feeds.
Triagem cervical: triagem primária do HPV.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Material promocional da PHE.
Apêndice FM 1.0b: vida familiar (como parceiro ou pai) e vida privada: rotas de 10 anos.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Orientação do UKVI Parte de uma coleção: Família de pessoas que se estabeleceram ou vieram se estabelecer (orientação modernizada)
Registro de patrocinadores licenciados: estudantes.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Orientação do UKVI Parte de uma coleção: Patrocínio: orientação para empregadores e educadores.
A libra de Bradbury.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Lançamento do HMT FOI.
Moçambique - Pacote de Prisioneiros.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Orientação do FCO Parte de uma coleção: Pacotes de Prisioneiros.
Lista de propriedades não reivindicadas.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 BVD e GLD Conjunto de dados estatísticos.
Moçambique - Pacote de Luto / Informação.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Orientação do FCO Parte de uma coleção: Morte no exterior - pacotes de luto.
Moçambique - Lista dos Diretores Funerários.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Orientação do FCO.
Moçambique - Lista de Faculdades Médicas.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Orientação do FCO.
Moçambique - Lista de tradutores e intérpretes.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Orientação do FCO.
Erros de medicação: relatório do Short Life Working Group.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Relatório independente do DHSC.
Voo baixo militar: as armas de ar variam de atividade.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Orientação MOD.
Moçambique - Lista de Advogados.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Orientação do FCO Parte de uma coleção: listas de advogados no exterior.
Organograma de receitas e alfândega do HM.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Relatório corporativo do HMRC Parte de uma coleção: Organização.
Fechamentos A47.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Highways England FOI release.
Atas das reuniões da Mesa Redonda do Meio Ambiente HS2.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 HS2 Ltd Dados de transparência.
TR21 0JY, Conselho das Ilhas Scilly, EPR / BB3407MC: licença ambiental emitida.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Aviso da EA.
ME18 5NB, Kent Soils and Composts Limited: anúncio de pedido de licença ambiental.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Aviso da EA.
Preços de commodities.
23 fevereiro 2018 Defra Conjunto de dados estatísticos Parte de uma coleção: Preços de commodities.
Manual de concessão de planos de gestão florestais 2017: Gestão do Campo.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Defra, RPA, Forestry e Natural England Guidance Parte de uma coleção: informações dos detentores do contrato: Gestão do Campo.
MHCLG: informações sobre gerenciamento da força de trabalho, dezembro de 2017.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Dados de transparência do MHCLG Parte de uma colecção: MHCLG: informação de gestão da força de trabalho.
Dados de gastos do MHCLG: dezembro de 2017.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 MHCLG Transparency data Parte de uma coleção: o MHCLG gasta mais de £ 250.
Estatísticas mensais da pesca marítima em dezembro de 2017.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 MMO National Statistics Parte de uma coleção: Estatísticas mensais da pesca marítima no Reino Unido.
Thomas Cator negociando como T Cator Estate: aplicação feita para abstrair a água.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 EA Observação Parte de uma coleção: Abstração ou captação de água: avisos de aplicações feitas.
Último conjunto de dados - desembarques de embarcações no Reino Unido e no exterior pelo porto do Reino Unido e desembarques de navios do Reino Unido no exterior: 2014, 2015, 2016 e 2017 (ano até a data)
23 de fevereiro de 2018 MMO Conjunto de dados estatísticos Parte de uma coleção: Estatísticas mensais da pesca marítima no Reino Unido.
Dados trimestrais de atividade hospitalar para o terceiro trimestre de 2017/18.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Estatísticas oficiais do NHS England.
Investigações especializadas para a prevenção de fraudes e por medida: Código de prática 8.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 HMRC Orientação Parte de uma coleção: HM Revenue and Customs: folhetos, fichas informativas e folhetos.
Capacidade de leitos para cuidados críticos e operações urgentes canceladas para janeiro de 2018.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Estatísticas oficiais do NHS England.
Inspeções e resultados iniciais da formação de professores (ITE): informações gerenciais.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Ofsted Conjunto de dados estatísticos Parte de uma coleção: Formação inicial de professores: inspeções e resultados.
Subsídio do plano de manejo florestal: Administração do Campo.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Defra, RPA, Forestry e Natural England Guidance Parte de uma coleção: Woodland support: Countryside Stewardship e Countryside Stewardship.
Estatísticas trimestrais de pagamento direto para a Irlanda do Norte (dezembro de 2017)
23 de fevereiro de 2018 NISRA e Departamento de Saúde (Irlanda do Norte) Estatística Oficial.
Relatório de viagem dos altos funcionários do HMRC.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Dados de Transparência do HMRC.
B33 0SS, Reciclagem de Resíduos de Madeira Limitada: anúncio de pedido de licença ambiental.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Aviso da EA.
Monitoramento e verificação de medição atmosférica de longo prazo do Reino Unido de emissões de gases de efeito estufa.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Orientação BEIS Parte de uma coleção: estatísticas de emissões de gases de efeito estufa do Reino Unido.
TS2 1SD, Hydrock Contracting Limited: anúncio de pedido de licença ambiental.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Aviso da EA.
ST15 0SS, Blancomet Recycling UK Limited: anúncio de pedido de licença ambiental.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Aviso da EA.
YO25 4EG, SJ Savile and Sons: anúncio de pedido de licença ambiental.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Aviso da EA.
WV11 2RE, Jack Moody Paisagismo e Engenharia Civil Ltd: anúncio de pedido de licença ambiental.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Aviso da EA.
NG6 8UR, Bulwell Energy Limited: anúncio de pedido de licença ambiental.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Aviso da EA.
Acreditação de GCSEs e níveis A para o ensino a partir de 2018.
23 de fevereiro de 2018 Ofqual Orientação Parte de uma coleção: reformas de nível GCSE, AS e A Próxima página 2 de 2710.
Esta página é útil?
Serviços e informações.
Departamentos e política.
Links de suporte.
Ajuda Cookies Contato Termos e condições Rhestr o Wasanaethau Cymraeg Construído pelo Serviço Digital do Governo.
Todo o conteúdo está disponível sob a licença Open Government License v3.0, salvo indicação em contrário.

Evitar os erros do passado: em direção a uma estratégia de gestão orientada para a comunidade para o Parque Nacional proposto em Abuja-Nigéria.
Nos últimos tempos, os papéis da participação local no que antes era percebido como pura prestação de serviços públicos chegaram à linha de frente do debate político e da pesquisa acadêmica. Neste contexto, este documento enfoca os papéis das comunidades locais na gestão de ecossistemas protegidos usando o proposto parque nacional de Abuja como um estudo de caso. Com base na análise dos resultados de um levantamento sócio-econômico das comunidades na área de estudo, o artigo argumenta que a conservação sustentável do parque proposto só pode ser alcançada se um esquema de manejo que integre, capacite e envolva as comunidades locais. no planejamento e implementação do programa de gerenciamento do parque é colocado em prática. O documento sugere uma estratégia colaborativa como a da Gestão Coordenada de Recursos, que tem as características de promover uma atmosfera de comunicação aberta, garantindo a participação voluntária das partes interessadas e garantindo decisões por consenso, em vez daqueles que reforçam decisões usando meios legais e políticos.
Escolha uma opção para localizar / acessar este artigo:
Verifique se você tem acesso através de suas credenciais de login ou de sua instituição.

As estratégias nacionais sob as convenções sobre biodiversidade e clima da ONU tratam do consumo de commodities agrícolas como um fator de desmatamento?
Destaques.
271 Os documentos da ONU sobre biodiversidade e mudanças climáticas foram examinados para os vetores de desmatamento.
Esses documentos raramente discutem as ligações entre desmatamento e commodities agrícolas.
As estratégias de REDD + são mais propensas a discutir e sugerir respostas políticas à demanda agrícola distante como fator de desmatamento.
Sugere-se medidas políticas nacionais, esquemas de certificação e estilos de vida sustentáveis.
As estratégias para a implementação das convenções da ONU devem refletir as evidências existentes sobre a importância da demanda por commodities agrícolas no desmatamento tropical.
A conversão florestal nos trópicos é cada vez mais impulsionada pela demanda global por commodities agrícolas de risco florestal, como soja, carne bovina, óleo de palma e madeira. Para serem eficazes, as futuras políticas de conservação florestal devem incluir medidas visando tanto os produtores (o lado da oferta) quanto os consumidores (o lado da demanda) para lidar com o desmatamento movido a commodities. Enquanto as Convenções das Nações Unidas sobre Biodiversidade (CBD) e Mudanças Climáticas (UNFCCC) não fazem referência a este fator determinante, aqui exploramos se e como as estratégias nacionais recentes dos Estados membros para as Convenções reconhecem o papel das commodities agrícolas no desmatamento tropical. Uma análise textual de 139 Contribuições Nacionalmente Determinadas (INDCs) para mitigação da mudança climática e 132 Estratégias Nacionais de Biodiversidade e Planos de Ação (NBSAPs) mostra que o trade-off geral entre as aspirações nacionais de desenvolvimento e a conservação da floresta é comumente reconhecido. No entanto, apenas algumas estratégias ligam o desmatamento à produção e ao consumo de mercadorias, enquanto a maioria dos documentos não menciona esse tópico. Essa falta de referência a um fator-chave do desmatamento tropical limita as perspectivas de salvaguardar as florestas tropicais para fins de mitigação da biodiversidade e das mudanças climáticas como parte das duas Convenções da ONU, e pode comprometer sua eficácia geral.
Esses resultados foram complementados por uma análise de conteúdo de documentos dos INDCs, NBSAPs e REDD + de oito países afetados pelo desmatamento movido a commodities. Investigamos se esse driver é reconhecido nas estratégias nacionais e quais medidas políticas são sugeridas para lidar com a perda florestal de commodities agrícolas. Descobrimos que seis países do caso mencionam commodities agrícolas como vetores de desmatamento em seus documentos de REDD +, enquanto as estratégias de biodiversidade e mudança climática silenciaram sobre o assunto. Medidas políticas direcionadas à produção de commodities foram sugeridas em quatro estratégias de REDD +, que vão desde pagamentos de incentivos, práticas agrícolas sustentáveis ​​e planejamento do uso da terra a abordagens do lado da demanda, como certificação e promoção de estilos de vida sustentáveis.
Uma conclusão deste exercício é que os Estados membros da ONU parecem não considerar os planos nacionais sobre clima e biodiversidade como um fórum adequado para discutir abordagens detalhadas de conservação florestal. Argumentamos que, para aumentar a eficácia, as estratégias sob as Convenções da ONU devem levar em conta o desmatamento movido por commodities, por meio de medidas que abranjam tanto o lado produtor quanto o consumidor.

Perda de biodiversidade e extinções.
Autor e informações da página.
por Anup Shah Esta página: Globalissues / article / 171 / loss-of-biodiversity-extinctions. Para imprimir todas as informações (por exemplo, notas laterais expandidas, mostra links alternativos), use a versão de impressão: globalissues / print / article / 171.
Nesta página:
Extinções massivas da atividade humana.
Apesar de conhecer a importância da biodiversidade há muito tempo, a atividade humana vem causando extinções em massa. Como o Novo Serviço Ambiental, relatado em agosto de 1999 (link anterior): a atual taxa de extinção agora está se aproximando de 1.000 vezes a taxa de fundo e pode subir para 10.000 vezes a taxa de fundo durante o próximo século, se as tendências atuais continuarem [resultando] uma perda que facilmente se igualaria às extinções passadas. (Enfase adicionada)
Um relatório importante, a Avaliação Ecossistêmica do Milênio, divulgada em março de 2005, destacou uma perda substancial e irreversível na diversidade de vida na Terra, com cerca de 10 a 30% das espécies de mamíferos, aves e anfíbios ameaçadas de extinção devido a ações humanas. . O Fundo Mundial para a Natureza (WWF, World Wide Fund for Nature) acrescentou que a Terra é incapaz de se manter na luta para se regenerar a partir das exigências que colocamos sobre ela.
A União Internacional para a Conservação da Natureza (IUCN) observa em um vídeo que muitas espécies estão ameaçadas de extinção. Além do que, além do mais,
Em risco de extinção estão 1 em cada 8 aves 1 em cada 4 mamíferos 1 em cada 4 coníferas 1 em 3 anfíbios 6 em 7 tartarugas marinhas 75% da diversidade genética de culturas agrícolas foi perdida 75% das pescarias do mundo são totalmente ou mais explorados Até 70% das espécies conhecidas do mundo correm risco de extinção se as temperaturas globais subirem mais de 3,5 ° C 1/3 dos corais construtores de recifes ao redor do mundo estão ameaçados de extinção Mais de 350 milhões de pessoas sofrem com escassez de água .
Esse é o tipo de mundo que queremos, pergunta? Afinal, o pequeno vídeo conclui, nossas vidas estão inextricavelmente ligadas à biodiversidade e, em última análise, sua proteção é essencial para nossa própria sobrevivência:
Em diferentes partes do mundo, as espécies enfrentam diferentes níveis e tipos de ameaças. Mas os padrões gerais mostram uma tendência de queda na maioria dos casos.
Proporção de todas as espécies avaliadas em diferentes categorias de ameaça de risco de extinção na Lista Vermelha da IUCN, com base em dados de 47.677 espécies. Fonte: IUCN, gráfico de pizza compilado pelo Secretariado da Convenção sobre Diversidade Biológica (2010) Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, maio de 2010.
Conforme explicado no 3º Panorama Global da Biodiversidade da ONU, a taxa de perda de biodiversidade não foi reduzida porque as 5 principais pressões sobre a biodiversidade são persistentes, até mesmo intensificadas:
Perda e degradação do habitat Alterações climáticas Carga excessiva de nutrientes e outras formas de poluição Exploração excessiva e uso não sustentável Espécies exóticas invasoras.
A maioria dos governos informa à Convenção das Nações Unidas sobre Diversidade Biológica que essas pressões estão afetando a biodiversidade em seu país (ver p. 55 do relatório).
A União Internacional para a Conservação da Natureza (IUCN) mantém a Lista Vermelha para avaliar o estado de conservação de espécies, subespécies, variedades e até subpopulações selecionadas em escala global.
A extinção ameaça o ritmo de qualquer sucesso em conservação. Os anfíbios são os que mais correm risco, enquanto os corais tiveram um aumento dramático no risco de extinção nos últimos anos.
As razões variam do uso excessivo de recursos por seres humanos, mudanças climáticas, habitats fragmentados, destruição de habitat, acidificação oceânica e muito mais.
A pesquisa de tendências de longo prazo no registro fóssil sugere que os limites naturais de velocidade restringem a rapidez com que a biodiversidade pode se recuperar após as ondas de extinção. Assim, as taxas de extinção rápida significam que pode levar muito tempo para a natureza se recuperar.
Considere as seguintes observações e conclusões de especialistas e instituições estabelecidas, resumidas por Jaan Suurkula, MD e presidente de Médicos e Cientistas para Aplicação Responsável de Ciência e Tecnologia (PSRAST), observando o impacto que o aquecimento global terá sobre os ecossistemas e a biodiversidade:
A situação ambiental mundial provavelmente será ainda mais agravada pela crescente e rápida extinção global das espécies. Ocorreu no século XX a uma taxa mil vezes superior à média dos últimos 65 milhões de anos. Isso provavelmente desestabilizará vários ecossistemas, incluindo sistemas agrícolas.
… Em extinção lenta, vários mecanismos de balanceamento podem se desenvolver. Ninguém sabe qual será o resultado dessa taxa de extinção extremamente rápida. O que se sabe, com certeza, é que o sistema ecológico mundial tem sido mantido em equilíbrio através de uma interação muito complexa e multifacetada entre um grande número de espécies. Esta rápida extinção é, portanto, susceptível de precipitar colapsos de ecossistemas em escala global. Prevê-se que isso crie problemas agrícolas em grande escala, ameaçando o fornecimento de alimentos a centenas de milhões de pessoas. Esta previsão ecológica não leva em consideração os efeitos do aquecimento global que agravarão ainda mais a situação.
A pesca industrializada contribuiu de forma importante para a extinção em massa, devido a repetidas tentativas frustradas de limitar a pesca.
Um novo estudo global conclui que 90% de todos os grandes peixes desapareceram dos oceanos do mundo no último meio século, o resultado devastador da pesca industrial. O estudo, que levou 10 anos para ser concluído e foi publicado na revista internacional Nature, mostra uma imagem sombria das atuais populações da Terra de espécies como tubarões, espadarte, atum e marlim.
… A perda de peixes predadores é susceptível de causar múltiplos desequilíbrios complexos na ecologia marinha.
Outra causa para extensa extinção de peixes é a destruição de recifes de coral. Isso é causado por uma combinação de causas, incluindo o aquecimento dos oceanos, danos causados ​​por ferramentas de pesca e uma infecção prejudicial de organismos de coral promovida pela poluição dos oceanos. Levará centenas de milhares de anos para restaurar o que está sendo destruído em poucas décadas.
… De acordo com o estudo mais abrangente feito até agora neste campo, mais de um milhão de espécies serão perdidas nos próximos 50 anos. A causa mais importante foi a mudança climática.
… NOTA: A apresentação acima abrange apenas os problemas ambientais globais mais importantes e incendiários. Existem vários adicionais, especialmente no campo da poluição química que contribuem para prejudicar o meio ambiente ou perturbar o equilíbrio ecológico.
Jaan Suurkula, cooperação mundial necessária para evitar a crise global; Primeira parte - o problema, Médicos e cientistas para aplicação responsável da ciência e tecnologia, 6 de fevereiro de 2004 [ênfase é original]
Além disso, como relatado pela UC Berkeley, usando comparações de DNA, os cientistas descobriram o que eles denominaram como um conceito evolucionário chamado paralelismo, uma situação em que dois organismos desenvolvem independentemente a mesma adaptação a um ambiente particular. Isso tem uma ramificação adicional quando se trata de proteger a biodiversidade e as espécies ameaçadas de extinção. Isto é porque no passado o que nós podemos ter considerado como uma espécie pode realmente ser muitos. Mas, como apontado pelos cientistas, colocando-os todos em um grupo, ele sub-representa a biodiversidade, e essas diferentes espécies evolutivas não estariam recebendo a proteção necessária.
Diminuição das populações de anfíbios.
Os anfíbios são particularmente sensíveis a mudanças no meio ambiente. Anfíbios têm sido descritos como uma espécie-marcador ou o equivalente dos canários das minas de carvão, o que significa que eles fornecem um sinal importante para a saúde da biodiversidade; quando estão estressados ​​e lutando, a biodiversidade pode estar sob pressão. Quando estão bem, a biodiversidade é provavelmente saudável.
Infelizmente, como tem sido temido há muitos anos, as espécies de anfíbios estão diminuindo a um ritmo alarmante.
O Sapo Dourado de Monteverde, na Costa Rica, foi uma das primeiras vítimas do declínio de anfíbios. Anteriormente abundante, foi visto pela última vez em 1989. (Fonte: Wikipedia)
Ele acrescentou que se as estimativas atuais de espécies de anfíbios em perigo iminente de extinção forem incluídas nesses cálculos, então a atual taxa de extinção de anfíbios pode variar de 25.039 a 45.474 vezes a taxa de extinção de fundo para anfíbios. É difícil explicar essa taxa de extinção sem precedentes e acelerada como um fenômeno natural. (Enfase adicionada)
Répteis ameaçados pelas alterações climáticas, desflorestação, perda de habitats, comércio.
A BBC informou em um estudo em escala global publicado na revista Science que descobriu que a mudança climática poderia acabar com 20% das espécies de lagartos do mundo até 2080.
Modelos de projeção global usados ​​pelos cientistas sugeriram que os lagartos já cruzaram um limiar de extinção causado pela mudança climática.
O medo de que as espécies de planícies se movam para altitudes mais elevadas seja previsto há muito tempo como um efeito da mudança climática. Isso foi observado com populações de lagartos também, como o líder da equipe de pesquisa disse à BBC.
Por que os lagartos são tão sensíveis às mudanças climáticas? A BBC resume:
Lagartos, dizem os pesquisadores, são muito mais suscetíveis à extinção do aquecimento do que se pensava anteriormente. Muitas espécies vivem exatamente no limite de seus limites térmicos.
As temperaturas crescentes, explicaram, deixam os lagartos incapazes de gastar tempo suficiente procurando alimentos, pois precisam descansar e regular a temperatura corporal.
Victoria Gill, mudança climática ligada à extinção do lagarto, BBC, 14 de maio de 2010 Cobra verde entre os répteis que enfrentam a extinção. (Crédito da imagem: © Ruchira Somaweera / IUCN)
Mais geralmente, estima-se que 19% dos répteis do mundo estejam ameaçados de extinção, de acordo com um estudo da União Internacional para Conservação da Natureza (IUCN) e da Sociedade Zoológica de Londres.
Os répteis incluem espécies como cobras, lagartos, crocodilos, tartarugas e tartarugas.
O estudo observou que o risco de extinção não é uniformemente distribuído. Por exemplo, o estudo estimou que 30% dos répteis de água doce estão perto da extinção. Só as tartarugas de água doce correm um risco de extinção de 50%, pois também são afetadas pelo comércio nacional e internacional.
Por que os répteis são tão sensíveis às condições ambientais? O principal autor do artigo resume:
Os répteis são frequentemente associados a habitats extremos e condições ambientais difíceis, por isso é fácil supor que eles estarão bem no nosso mundo em mudança. No entanto, muitas espécies são altamente especializadas em termos de uso do habitat e as condições climáticas que elas exigem para o funcionamento do dia a dia. Isso os torna particularmente sensíveis às mudanças ambientais.
Estoques de peixe diminuindo.
O terceiro relatório da Biodiversidade Global da ONU, mencionado anteriormente, observa que,
Cerca de 80% dos estoques mundiais de peixes marinhos para os quais as informações de avaliação estão disponíveis são totalmente explorados ou sobre-explorados.
Os estoques de peixes avaliados desde 1977 tiveram um declínio de 11% na biomassa total globalmente, com considerável variação regional. O tamanho médio máximo de peixes capturados diminuiu em 22% desde 1959 globalmente para todas as comunidades avaliadas. Há também uma tendência crescente de colapso das ações ao longo do tempo, com 14% das ações avaliadas em colapso em 2007.
Secretaria da Convenção sobre Diversidade Biológica (2010), Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, maio de 2010, p.48.
O IPS informa que as capturas de peixe devem diminuir drasticamente nas regiões tropicais do mundo por causa da mudança climática. Além disso, em 2006, a aquicultura consumiu 57 por cento de farinha de peixe e 87 por cento de óleo de peixe, uma vez que as pescarias industriais que operam em regiões tropicais capturaram quantidades enormes de anchovas, arenque, cavala e outros pequenos peixes pelágicos para alimentar o salmão de viveiro ou transformar em ração animal ou pet food. Isso resultou em preços mais altos para os peixes, atingindo os mais pobres.
Como Suurkula mencionou acima, a extinção em massa da vida marinha devido à pesca industrializada tem sido uma preocupação há muitos anos. No entanto, raramente faz manchetes mainstream. No entanto, um alerta de relatório sobre a perda de espécies marinhas que se tornou uma ameaça para toda a indústria pesqueira global atraiu a atenção da mídia.
Conforme também explicado na seção de importância da biodiversidade deste site, os ecossistemas são incrivelmente produtivos e eficientes - quando há biodiversidade suficiente. Cada forma de vida trabalha em conjunto com o ambiente ao redor para ajudar a reciclar o lixo, manter o ecossistema e fornecer serviços que outros - incluindo seres humanos - usam e se beneficiam.
Por exemplo, como observou Steve Palumbi, da Stamford University (e um dos autores do artigo), os ecossistemas oceânicos podem.
Tome esgoto e recicle em nutrientes; Esfregue as toxinas da água; Produzir alimentos para muitas espécies, incluindo seres humanos Transforma dióxido de carbono em comida e oxigênio.
Com a perda maciça de espécies, o relatório adverte, em taxas atuais, em menos de 50 anos, os ecossistemas poderiam atingir o ponto de não retorno, onde eles não seriam capazes de se regenerar.
O Dr. Boris Worm, um dos autores do artigo, e líder mundial em pesquisa sobre o oceano, comentou que:
Quer tenhamos olhado para as poças de maré ou para os estudos em todo o oceano, vimos a mesma imagem emergir. Na perda de espécies, perdemos a produtividade e a estabilidade de ecossistemas inteiros. Fiquei chocado e perturbado com a consistência dessas tendências - além de qualquer coisa que suspeitássemos.
Dr. Boris Worm, Perdendo espécies, Dalhousie University, 3 de novembro de 2006.
Atual é uma palavra importante, implicando que enquanto as coisas parecem terríveis, existem soluções e ainda não é tarde demais. O relatório acima e o artigo da IPS observaram que as áreas protegidas mostram que a biodiversidade pode ser restaurada rapidamente. Infelizmente, menos de 1% do oceano global está efetivamente protegido agora e onde a recuperação foi observada, vemos benefícios econômicos imediatos, diz o Dr. Worm. O tempo é, portanto, da essência.
Em uma atualização da história acima, 3 anos depois, em 2009, o Dr. Worm estava um pouco mais otimista de que alguns estoques de peixes podem se recuperar, se gerenciados adequadamente. Mas é um desafio difícil, já que 80% das pescarias globais já estão totalmente ou excessivamente exploradas.
Um exemplo de sobrepesca que tem um efeito cascata em toda a cadeia alimentar é a caça a tubarões.
O Great White Shark é o maior peixe predador. (Fonte: Wikipedia)
Estima-se que 100 milhões de tubarões estão sendo mortos a cada ano, segundo a revista Marine Policy, que publicou um relatório em 2013 representando a avaliação mais precisa até o momento (embora o desafio de obter os dados se refletisse em sua faixa de estimativa: 63 a 270 milhões, dos quais 100 milhões é a estimativa mediana.
Milhões são mortos pela pesca excessiva e pelo comércio. Muitos morrem acidentalmente em redes de pesca para atum e espadarte, enquanto outros são capturados por sua carne ou apenas por suas barbatanas.
Uma demanda por sopa de barbatana de tubarão em lugares como a China e Taiwan está dizimando populações de tubarões. Sopa de barbatana de tubarão é considerada uma iguaria (nem mesmo uma necessidade) e pode ser extremamente lucrativa. Tanto dinheiro pode ser obtido da nadadeira que os pescadores que caçam tubarões simplesmente pegam os tubarões e cortam suas barbatanas enquanto estão vivos, jogando o tubarão de volta ao oceano (para morrer, pois ele não pode nadar sem a barbatana). Isso economiza muito espaço em barcos de pesca. Algumas imagens de vídeo mostradas em documentários como a National Geographic revelam o quão bárbara e inútil é essa prática.
Os tubarões são conhecidos como o maior predador dos mares. Isso porque, em geral, os tubarões estão no topo da cadeia alimentar. Sem um número suficiente de tubarões, o equilíbrio que eles fornecem ao ecossistema está ameaçado porque a natureza evoluiu esse equilíbrio por muitos milênios.
Como a WWF, a organização global de conservação observa, contrariamente à crença popular, as barbatanas de tubarão têm pouco valor nutricional e podem até mesmo ser prejudiciais à sua saúde a longo prazo, já que as barbatanas contêm altos níveis de mercúrio.
A preocupação adicional é que muitas das espécies mais ameaçadas demoram a se reproduzir, de modo que suas populações não conseguem acompanhar a taxa que estão sendo desnecessariamente mortas.
Outro efeito da sobrepesca foi o aumento da pesca ilegal. Mas mesmo a pesca legal e de alta tecnologia causou outros problemas sociais. Os pescadores pobres na Somália se viram sem meios de subsistência quando navios pesqueiros internacionais chegaram à sua região, destruindo seus meios de subsistência. Alguns deles recorreram à pirataria em desespero. É claro que nem toda a culpa deve ser atribuída ao sistema internacional de pesca, pois também é uma escolha individual, mas o desespero e outras questões geopolíticas na região podem levar as pessoas a fazer coisas que normalmente não fariam.
Biodiversidade oceânica em declínio.
Não é apenas o peixe nos oceanos que pode estar lutando, mas a maior parte da vida nos mares. Isto inclui mamíferos (por exemplo, baleias, golfinhos, ursos polares), aves (por exemplo, pinguins) e outras criaturas (por exemplo, krill).
A degradação dos oceanos tem sido mais rápida do que se pensava anteriormente.
A saúde do oceano está espiralando para baixo muito mais rapidamente do que pensávamos. Estamos vendo uma mudança maior, acontecendo mais rápido e os efeitos são mais iminentes do que o previsto anteriormente. A situação deve ser a mais séria preocupação para todos, já que todos serão afetados pelas mudanças na capacidade do oceano de suportar a vida na Terra.
O Professor Alex Rogers, do Somerville College, Oxford, e Diretor Científico da IPSO, Última Revisão da Ciência Revela Oceano em Estado Crítico de Impactos Cumulativos, o Programa Internacional sobre o Estado do Oceano (IPSO), 3 de outubro de 2013.
Os fatores que afetam a saúde do oceano incluem:
Esses impactos terão consequências em cascata para a biologia marinha, incluindo a dinâmica da web alimentar alterada e a expansão de patógenos, observa a IPSO. Esses fatores também são analisados ​​com mais detalhes no artigo deste site sobre mudanças climáticas e biodiversidade, além de serem abordados com mais profundidade pelo relatório da IPSO, State of the Ocean.
O Censo da Vida Marinha é uma rede global de pesquisadores e cientistas. Eles participaram de uma iniciativa de uma década para avaliar a diversidade, a distribuição e a abundância de vida nos oceanos. Uma melhor compreensão destes sistemas complexos é claramente importante, dada a nossa dependência do ecossistema marinho de várias maneiras.
Este primeiro Censo da Vida Marinha (CoML) espera agir como uma linha de base de como a atividade humana está afetando os ecossistemas marinhos anteriormente inexplorados. Um banco de dados da vida marinha global também foi publicado, assim como inúmeros vídeos (também no YouTube) e imagens.
Embora seja um grande projeto (em termos de custo, escopo e duração), ainda há muitas incógnitas que precisarão de mais pesquisas. Por exemplo, o número atual de espécies marinhas conhecidas é estimado em 250.000. No entanto, os cientistas acreditam que até três vezes esse número ainda não foi descoberto e nomeado. (Veja a página 3 do seu relatório principal de 2010).
O Censo foi capaz de determinar, no entanto, que a pesca excessiva foi relatada como a maior ameaça à biodiversidade marinha em todas as regiões, seguida pela perda de habitat e poluição. Um dos relatórios resumidos também acrescentou que o fato de que essas ameaças foram relatadas em todas as regiões indica sua natureza global. Uma coleção de relatórios regionais e gerais também foi publicada no site da Public Library of Science.
No século passado, a caça comercial aniquilou numerosas populações de baleias, muitas das quais lutaram para se recuperar.
Estações baleeiras como esta nas Ilhas Faroe também são usadas para segurar golfinhos e outros animais. (Fonte da imagem: Wikipedia)
A caça comercial no passado era para o óleo de baleia. Sem nenhuma razão para usar o óleo de baleia hoje, a caça comercial de baleias é destinada principalmente à alimentação, enquanto também há caça para fins de pesquisa científica.
A caça comercial em larga escala foi tão destrutiva que em 1986 uma moratória sobre a caça à baleia foi criada pela Comissão Baleeira Internacional (IWC). Já em meados da década de 1930, houve tentativas internacionais de reconhecer o impacto da caça às baleias e tentar torná-la mais sustentável, resultando na criação da IWC em 1946. Muitas nações baleeiras comerciais fizeram parte dessa moratória, mas várias objeções e outras pressões para tentar retomar a caça às baleias.
O Japão frequentemente afirma que a caça às baleias é para pesquisa científica; a população em geral é muitas vezes bastante cética em relação a tais alegações. (Fonte da imagem: © Greenpeace)
O Japão é o principal exemplo de caça a baleias para o objetivo declarado da pesquisa científica, enquanto muito ceticismo diz que é para alimentos. O Greenpeace e outras organizações frequentemente divulgam descobertas que argumentam que a caça ao baleia no Japão é excessiva ou primordialmente destinada à alimentação, e que a pesquisa é secundária.
A negatividade pública geral da caça comercial também levou a uma diferença entre as comunidades tradicionais de baleias na região ártica e os conservacionistas. As comunidades indígenas tradicionais costumam caçar baleias em números muito menores comercialmente, principalmente para o consumo local de alimentos, mas os impactos da caça comercial em grande escala significam que até mesmo a caça está sob pressão.
Alguns argumentaram que a caça às baleias é uma forma de sustentar outras populações marinhas. A National Geographic Wild exibiu um programa chamado Uma vida entre as baleias (transmitido em 14 de junho de 2008). Ele observou como algumas décadas atrás, alguns pescadores fizeram campanha para matar baleias porque aparentemente estavam ameaçando o suprimento de peixe. Uma cadeia de eventos acabou fechando o ciclo e levou a uma perda de empregos:
A redução maciça na população local de baleias significava que as baleias assassinas naquela região (que geralmente caçavam as baleias mais jovens) se mudavam para outros animais, como focas. O número de focas declinou, as baleias atacaram as lontras. outros alvos de lontras floresceram Estes dizimaram as florestas de kelp onde muitas larvas de peixes cresceram em relativa proteção. As larvas de peixes expostas foram fáceis de apanhar para uma variedade de vida marinha. Os meios de subsistência dos pescadores foram destruídos.
Este pode ser um exemplo vívido de humanos interferindo e alterando o equilíbrio dos ecossistemas e entendendo mal a importância da biodiversidade.
A Dra. Sylvia Earle, descrita como uma lenda viva pela Biblioteca do Congresso dos EUA, é um oceanógrafo, explorador, autor e palestrante de renome mundial. No início dos anos 90, ela foi a cientista chefe da Administração Nacional Oceanográfica e Atmosférica dos EUA. Em 2009, ela ganhou o prestigioso prêmio TED. Como parte do prêmio, ela foi capaz de compartilhar um desejo, que capturou algumas das principais preocupações sobre a redução da biodiversidade oceânica e sua importância para toda a vida na Terra:
O aumento da rápida acidificação dos oceanos, causada pelos oceanos absorvendo mais dióxido de carbono do que o habitual (porque é emitido pelos seres humanos mais do que deveria) também afeta os ecossistemas marinhos, conforme explicado na página sobre alterações climáticas e biodiversidade deste site.
Ecossistemas de águas interiores.
Utilizamos a água para diversos fins, desde usos agrícolas, domésticos e industriais. Isso envolveu atividades que alteram os ecossistemas circundantes, tais como drenagem, desvio de água para irrigação, uso industrial e doméstico, contaminação de água com excesso de escorrimento de nutrientes (por exemplo, de fertilizantes) e resíduos industriais, construção de barragens, etc.
O terceiro relatório da ONU sobre Biodiversidade Global da ONU também mencionou as observações anteriores de que as áreas úmidas de águas rasas, como pântanos, pântanos e lagos rasos, diminuíram significativamente em muitas partes do mundo. (p.42)
O relatório também observa que a qualidade da água nos ecossistemas de água doce é um importante indicador de biodiversidade, mas ainda faltam dados globais. Mas existem numerosos exemplos que são conhecidos. Citando vários exemplos do relatório,
Entre 56% e 65% dos sistemas de águas interiores adequados para uso em agricultura intensiva na Europa e na América do Norte haviam sido drenados em 1985. Os respectivos números para a Ásia e a América do Sul foram de 27% e 6%. 73% dos pântanos no norte da Grécia foram drenados desde 1930. 60% da área original da zona húmida de Espanha foi perdida. Os pântanos da Mesopotâmia do Iraque perderam mais de 90% de sua extensão original entre os anos 1970 e 2002, após um projeto massivo e sistemático de drenagem. Após a queda do antigo regime iraquiano em 2003, muitas estruturas de drenagem foram desmanteladas, e os pântanos foram inundados por cerca de 58% de sua extensão anterior até o final de 2006, com uma recuperação significativa da vegetação pantanosa. Mais de 40% da descarga global do rio é agora interceptada por grandes barragens e um terço do sedimento destinado às zonas costeiras já não chega. Estas perturbações em grande escala tiveram um impacto importante na migração de peixes, na biodiversidade de água doce em geral e nos serviços que fornece. They also have a significant influence on biodiversity in terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystems.
The report also notes that The number of observed dead zones , coastal sea areas where water oxygen levels have dropped too low to support most marine life, has roughly doubled each decade since the 1960s. Many are concentrated near the estuaries of major rivers, and result from the buildup of nutrients, largely carried from inland agricultural areas where fertilizers are washed into watercourses. The nutrients promote the growth of algae that die and decompose on the seabed, depleting the water of oxygen and threatening fisheries, livelihoods and tourism. (p. 60)
We can be optimistic and believe human ingenuity will solve these kind of problems. Por exemplo,
The report does add that combating nutrient pollution can work and overtime reverse the pressure on ecosystems. A number of European nations have been doing this recently. Additionally, an estimated 12% of the area of the world’s inland waters are included within protected areas. Governments of 159 countries have ratified the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, currently committed to conserving 1,880 wetlands of international importance, covering over 1.8 million square km, and to the sustainable use of wetland resources generally. In many countries, steps are being taken to restore wetlands, often reversing previous, sometimes recent land-use policies as there is increased recognition of the multiple benefits such as purification of water, protection from natural disasters, food and materials for local livelihoods and income from tourism.
However, it is not all rosy. As the report also notes. For example, despite the Ramsar Convention, conditions of those protected areas continue to deteriorate. Furthermore,
In some areas, depletion and pollution of economically important water resources have gone beyond the point of no return, and coping with a future without reliable water resources systems is now a real prospect in parts of the world. UNESCO’s Third World Water Development Report predicts that nearly half of humanity will be living in areas of high water stress by 2030.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010), Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, May, 2010, p.43.
This site’s section on water and development looks into water related issues in more depth.
Loss of forests equates to a loss of many species.
A 20-year study has shown that deforestation and introduction of non-native species has led to about 12.5% of the world’s plant species to become critically rare. (In fact, as an example, a study suggests that the Amazon damage is worse than previously thought, due to previously undetected types of selective logging and deforestation.)
A report from the World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development suggests that the forests of the world have been exploited to the point of crisis and that major changes in global forest management strategies would be needed to avoid the devastation.
What also makes this a problem is that many of the endangered species are only found in small areas of land, often within the borders of a single country.
New species of animals and plants are still being discovered. In Papua New Guinea, 44 new species of animals were discovered recently in the forests. Logging may affect these animals’ habitats, though. The loss of rainforests around the world, where many species of life are found will mean that potential knowledge, whether medicinal, sustenance sources, or evolutionary and scientific information etc. could be lost.
Brazil, which is estimated to have around 55,000 species of flora, amounting to some 22% of the world’s total and India for example, which has about 46,000 and some 81,000 animal species (amounting to some 8% of the world’s biodiversity), are also under various pressures, from corporate globalization, deforrestation, etc. So too are many other biodiverse regions, such as Indonesia, parts of Africa, and other tropical regions.
The UN’s 3rd Global Biodiversity Outlook report, mentioned earlier, also notes the extent to which deforestation is occurring as well as measures to address associated concerns.
The report notes (p.32) that forests.
Are approximately 31% of the Earth’s land surface, Contain more than half of all terrestrial animal and plant species (mostly in the tropics), and Account for more than two-thirds of net primary production on land – the conversion of solar energy into plant matter.
Deforestation, however, continues at an alarming rate , despite recent decreases in several tropical countries.
Comparing actual area of Brazilian portion of the Amazon deforested each year between 1990 and 2009 including the projected rate based on Brazilian government targets to reduce deforestation by 80% by 2020, and cumulative total deforestation as a percentage of the estimated original extent of the Brazilian Amazon (4.1 million km2). Source: Brazilian National Space Research Agency (INPE), graph compiled by Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, May 2010, p.33.
The significant decline noted in the Brazilian Amazon is not enough to prevent the World Bank worrying about the future. The Global Biodiversity Outlook report notes that According to a recent study co-ordinated by the World Bank, 20% Amazon deforestation would be sufficient to trigger significant dieback of forest in some parts of the biome by 2025, when coupled with other pressures such as climate change and forest fires.
Furthermore, some of the reversals in deforestation is because of re forestation, but the report raises the same concerns as also noted further below. Namely, Since newly-planted forests often have low biodiversity value and may only include a single tree species, a slowing of net forest loss does not necessarily imply a slowing in the loss of global forest biodiversity. Between 2000 and 2010, the global extent of primary forest (that is, substantially undisturbed) declined by more than 400,000 square km, an area larger than Zimbabwe. (p. 32)
Sustainable Forests or Sustainable Profits?
The overly corporate-led form of globalization that we see today also affects how natural resources are used and what priorities they are used for.
It is true that cutting down forests or converting natural forests into monocultures of pine and eucalyptus for industrial raw material generates revenues and growth. But this growth is based on robbing the forest of its biodiversity and its capacity to conserve soil and water. This growth is based on robbing forest communities of their sources of food, fodder, fuel, fiber, medicine, and security from floods and drought.
Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest, (South End Press, 2000), p.1 (Image source: Wikipedia)
We hear more about sustainable forestry practices by the large logging multinationals. However, what does that really mean? Who is it sustainable for? Society and the environment, or for the logging companies? By replanting trees that will grow quickly and allow them to be felled for sustained logging sounds like a good strategy. However, the trees that are favored for this (eucalyptus) require a lot of water to grow so quickly. As John Madeley points out:
[T]he [eucalyptus] trees achieve this rapid growth by tapping large quantities of groundwater, impoverishing surrounding vegetation and threatening to dry up local water courses.
John Madeley, Big Business Poor Peoples; The Impact of Transnational Corporations on the World’s Poor, (Zed Books, 1999) p.76.
Madeley continues by describing the impact that the use of chemicals to treat woodpulp from the eucalyptus has on local fisheries and on food production. This has had terrible effects on indigenous people within such regions.
10 years on from the above, Inter Press Service notes similar things, as activists around the Amazon complain about tree plantations.
Illegal Timber Trade on a Large Scale.
Some government institutions even buy illegal timber from pristine forests. For example, it is claimed that UK buys all of its Mahogany from pristine forests in Brazil where 80% of all timber is traded illegally. Even though Brazil has now tried to introduce a moratorium on Mahogany logging for two years, this has been slammed by some as too little, too late.
Legal Timber Trade on a Large Scale.
Under much secrecy, there is a push from USA and Asian economies to reduce tariffs for wood and paper products. Also at the WTO Ministerial meeting in November 1999, opening more markets for easier access was the agenda, which included forests.
People and Forests.
Quite often we make blanket statements or generalized conclusions that people are the cause of deforestation. While that is true, unfortunately all people around the world are not equal, and it also also follows that some are more responsible for deforestation than others. Often, in forests of the Amazon, Africa, or Asia, forest protection schemes have been promoted that go against indigenous peoples and cultures, rather than work with them.
As Indian activist and scientist Vandana Shiva and others have shown in countless work, indigenous people often have their cultures and lifestyle structured in a way that works with nature and would not undermine their own resource base. For example, in her book Stolen Harvests (South End Press, 2000) she describes how their traditional knowledge has been beneficial to the environment and has been developed and geared towards this understanding and respect of the ecosystems around them.
Hopetoun falls, Australia; an example of trying to preserve nature while allowing tourism. (Source: Wikipedia)
Yet because of blanket conclusions that humankind is responsible for deforestation, we risk assuming all types of societies are equally responsible for deforestation that is damaging to the environment. (This hints then, that for sustainable development projects, a more participatory approach can be accepted by local people, reducing the chance for conflict and distrust and therefore be more likely to succeed as well.)
As the cartoon, further above, from the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment notes, logging companies and others can often have a larger impact on deforestation. Industrial agriculture and beef production for example, is a major cause of deforestation in the Amazon, to raise cattle. This is not even for local needs, but to meet fast food restaurant demands in the Northern countries. A combination of geopolitics and economic agreements foster a scenario for such results to occur.
The UN’s 3rd Global Biodiversity Outlook report, mentioned earlier, also notes how indigenous communities can benefit their local environments and is quoted at length:
Indigenous and local communities play a significant role in conserving very substantial areas of high biodiversity and cultural value.
In addition to officially-designated protected areas, there are many thousand Community Conserved Areas (CCAs) across the world, including sacred forests, wetlands, and landscapes, village lakes, catchment forests, river and coastal stretches and marine areas. These are natural and/or modified ecosystems of significant value in terms of their biodiversity, cultural significance and ecological services. They are voluntarily conserved by indigenous and local communities, through customary laws or other effective means, and are not usually included in official protected area statistics.
Globally, 4 to 8 million square km (the larger estimate is an area bigger than Australia) are owned or administered by communities. In 18 developing countries with the largest forest cover, over 22% of forests are owned by or reserved for communities. In some of these countries (for example Mexico and Papua New Guinea) the community forests cover 80% of the total. By no means all areas under community control effectively conserved, but a substantial portion are. In fact, some studies show that levels of protection are actually higher under community or indigenous management than under government management alone.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010), Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, May, 2010, pp.40 – 41.
For more on this aspect of people and biodiversity, you can see also the following:
Centre for Science and Environment have a lot of resources on such issues. As an example, you can see: Forest campaign Pining for More, an article from their Down to Earth magazine (Vol 10, No 18 February 15, 2001). This article describes how Pine-based sustainable forests are not sustainable at all, and that Pine trees even make forest fires spread rapidly, while degrading local ecology, but grow fast, which is good for business. Participatory Forest Management—Restoring Ecological Health and Enhancing Economic Opportunity in Sub-Saharan Africa, by Todd Beer, Grassroots Globalization Network, Summer 2002. This is a report looking at how local communities in Sub-Saharan Africa can be beneficial to sustainable forest management. Vandana Shiva web site On this web site’s population and environmental stress section, there is in-depth discussion on flawed and missed out assumption regarding ecological limits and factors that affect environmental degradation. These errors lead to often blaming the wrong groups of people for the problems and therefore lead to the promotion of inappropriate policies to deal with the issues. Beef from this web site describes many aspects of deforestation and provides links and sources to other information. Ogiek web site. This web site is about the Ogiek indigenous people of Kenya’s Mau Forest, and highlights an example of how they are being denied to live on their lands, for fears of deforestation issues. Yet, logging companies have an interest in this forest as well. Saving forests: an inspiring success story from India from ID21 provides a summary of findings in India.
Mais Informações.
Some possible starting points for additional information include the following:
The World Resources Institute: Forest Frontiers Initiative. Forests section. Climate, Biodiversity, and Forests report, which looks at the link between forests, land-use and global warming. World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development This article titled Forests and Deforestation. This is a good article which also points out that humans are not inherently harmful to forest, and have in some cases positively contributed to forest evolution. It has a good look at various factors involved. ActivistNet deforestation resources. The Forests section from the Global Warming part of this web site, describes some of the relations between things like deforestation, carbon sinks and climate change.
Misuse of land and resources.
How land is used to produce food can have enormous impacts on the environment and its sustainability. And this often has nothing to do with populations. Take the following as an example:
Junk-food chains, including KFC and Pizza Hut, are under attack from major environmental groups in the United States and other developed countries because of their environmental impact. Intensive breeding of livestock and poultry for such restaurants leads to deforestation, land degradation, and contamination of water sources and other natural resources. For every pound of red meat, poultry, eggs, and milk produced, farm fields lose about five pounds of irreplaceable top soil. The water necessary for meat breeding comes to about 190 gallons per animal per day, or ten times what a normal Indian family is supposed to use in one day, if it gets water at all.
… Overall, animal farms use nearly 40 percent of the world’s total grain production. In the United States, nearly 70 percent of grain production is fed to livestock.
… In Indian Agriculture, women use up to 150 different species of plants (which the biotech industry would call weeds) as medicine, food, or fodder. For the poorest, this biodiversity is the most important resource for survival. … What is a weed for Monsanto is a medicinal plant or food for rural people.
Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest, (South End Press, 2000), pp. 70-71, 104-105.
Because industrial agriculture promotes the use of monocultures, rather than a diversity of crops, the loss of biodiversity is leading to more resource usage, as described above. This as well as other political situations such as the motives for dumping surplus food on to developing countries to undersell the local farmers, leads to further hunger around the world.
For more information on land and hunger issues, this web site provides sections on:
Long Term Costs.
If ecosystems deteriorates to an unsustainable level, then the problems resulting can be very expensive, economically, to reverse.
In Bangladesh and India, for example, logging of trees and forests means that the floods during the monsoon seasons can be very deadly. Similarly, many avalanches, and mud slides in many regions around the world that have claimed many lives, may have been made worse by the clearing of so many forests, which provide a natural barrier, that can take the brunt of such forces.
As the Centre for Science and Environment mentions, factors such as climate change and environmental degradation can impact regions more so, and make the impacts of severe weather systems even worse than they already are. As they further point out, for poor regions, such as Orissa in India, this is even more of a problem.
Vanishing coral reefs, forests and other ecosystems can all take their toll and even make the effects of some natural events even worse.
The cost of the effects together with the related problems that can arise (like disease, and other illness, or rebuilding and so on) is much more costly than the maintenance and sustainable development practices that could be used instead.
As an example, and assuming a somewhat alarmist scenario, if enough trees and forests and related ecosystems vanish or deteriorate sufficiently:
Then the oxygen-producing benefits from such ecosystems is threatened. The atmosphere would suffer from more pollution. The cost to tackle this and the related illnesses, problems and other cascading effects would be enormous (as it can be assumed that industrial pollution could increase, with less natural ecosystems to soak it up) Furthermore, other species in that ecosystem that would depend on this would be further at risk as well, which would lead to a downward spiral for that ecosystem.
Compare those costs to taking precautionary measures such as protecting forests and promoting more sustainable forms of development. Of course, people will argue that these situations will not occur for whatever reasons. Only when it is too late can others say told you so — a perhaps very nasty Catch 22.
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) is an organization — backed by the UN and various European governments — attempting to compile, build and make a compelling economics case for the conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity.
It has also attempted to put a value on the ecological services provided to humanity. It found, for example, implementing REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) could help.
Halve deforestation by 2030, and Cut emissions by 1.5 Gt of CO2 per year.
From a cost perspective (p.18), it is estimated that.
It would cost from US$ 17.2 – 33 billion per year The estimated benefit in reduced climate change is US$ 3.2 trillion.
In addition, they cited another study that estimated that 3,000 listed companies around the world were responsible for over $2 trillion in environmental externalities (i. e. costs that have to be borne by society from ignored factors, or social costs ). This is equivalent to 7% of their combined revenues and up to a third of their combined profits.
The benefits of these silent parts of our economy is also summarized in these videos by TEEB’s Pavan Sukhdev:
Social costs to some segments of society can also be high. Take for example the various indigenous Indians of Latin America. Throughout the region, as aspects of corporate globalization spread, there is growing conflict between land and resources of the indigenous communities, and those required to meet globalization related needs. The following quote from a report on this issue captures this quite well:
Many of the natural resources found on Indian lands have become more valuable in the context of the modern global economy. Several factors have spurred renewed interest in natural resources on Indian lands in Latin America, among them the mobility of capital, ecological limits to growth in developed countries, lax environmental restrictions in underdeveloped nations, lower transportation costs, advances in biotechnology, cheap third world labor, and national privatization policies. Limits to logging in developed countries have led timber transnationals overseas. Increased demand and higher prices for minerals have generated the reopening of mines and the proliferation of small-scale mining operations. Rivers are coveted for their hydroelectric potential, and bioprospecting has put a price tag on biodiversity. Originally considered lands unsuitable for productive activities, the resources on Indian lands are currently the resources of the future.
Indian land rights and decisionmaking authority regarding natural resource use on territories to which they hold claim threaten the mobility of capital and access to resources—key elements of the transnational-led globalization model. Accordingly, increased globalization has generally sharpened national conservative opposition to indigenous rights in the Americas and elsewhere in the name of making the world safe for investment. The World Trade Organization (WTO), free trade agreements, and transnational corporations are openly hostile to any legislation that might create barriers to investment or the unlimited exploitation of natural resources on Indian lands. The result has been a growing number of conflicts between indigenous communities and governments and transnational corporations over control of natural resources.
The Military and the Environment.
Many military forces of the world also have an effect on the environment. Sometimes, the scale of problems they leave when they move out of a training area or conflict is considerable. In some nations, such as the United States, the military can be exempt from many environmental regulations.
By no means a complete set of examples, the following illustrate some of the issues:
In the Gulf War and Kosovo crisis, the US and UK used depleted Uranium which have environmental consequences as well. In the Vietnam war, the US used Agent Orange to defoliate the entire Vietnamese rainforest ecosystem. The effects are still being felt. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, various forces often kill gorillas and other animals as they encroach upon their land. In Okinawa, the large US military bases also affect the environment for the local population. Vieques, Puerto Rico, the US use live rounds in bombing ranges, and low altitude flying for training. This also has had an effect on the environment. A report prepared by the Institute for Policy Studies, April 2000, called The International Grassroots Summit on Military Base Cleanup provides a lot of details and many more examples.
Attempts to promote biodiversity outweighed by activities against it.
At the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (the Earth Summit ), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was born. 192 countries, plus the EU, are now Parties to that convention. In April 2002, the Parties to the Convention committed to significantly reduce the loss of biodiversity loss by 2010.
Perhaps predictably, that did not happen. As the Global Biodiversity Outlook report summarizes, despite numerous successful conservations measures supporting biodiversity,
The 2010 biodiversity target has not been met at the global level. None of the twenty-one sub-targets accompanying the overall target of significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010 can be said definitively to have been achieved globally, although some have been partially or locally achieved. Despite an increase in conservation efforts, the state of biodiversity continues to decline, according to most indicators, largely because the pressures on biodiversity continue to increase. There is no indication of a significant reduction in the rate of decline in biodiversity, nor of a significant reduction in pressures upon it.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010), Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, May, 2010, p.17.
Action to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity has not been taken on a sufficient scale to address the pressures on biodiversity in most places. There has been insufficient integration of biodiversity issues into broader policies, strategies and programmes, and the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss have not been addressed significantly. Actions to promote … biodiversity receive a tiny fraction of funding compared to … infrastructure and industrial developments. Moreover, biodiversity considerations are often ignored when such developments…. Actions to address the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss, including demographic, economic, technological, socio-political and cultural pressures, in meaningful ways, have also been limited.
Most future scenarios project continuing high levels of extinctions and loss of habitats throughout this century, with associated decline of some ecosystem services important to human well-being.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010), Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, May, 2010, pp.9–10.
Most indicators of the state of biodiversity show negative trends, with no significant reduction in the rate of decline:
An example of the positive efforts has been the growth in protected areas in recent years, including more protected marine areas:
The extent of nationally designated protected areas, 1970 to 2008 has generally increased. Source: UNEP-WCMC, graph compiled by Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, May 2010, p.36.
However, the level of protection in protected areas is mostly basic:
Despite more than 12 per cent of land now being covered by protected areas, nearly half (44%) of terrestrial eco-regions fall below 10 per cent protection, and many of the most critical sites for biodiversity lie outside protected areas. Of those protected areas where effectiveness of management has been assessed, 13% were judged to be clearly inadequate, while more than one fifth demonstrated sound management, and the remainder were classed as basic .
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010), Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, May, 2010, p.35.
Although some dislike the thought of trying to put an economic value on biodiversity (some things are just priceless), there have been attempts to do so in order for people to understand the magnitude of the issue: how important the environment is to humanity and what costs and benefits there can be in doing (or not doing) something.
Implementing REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) could help.
Halve deforestation by 2030, and Cut emissions by 1.5 Gt of CO 2 per year.
From a cost perspective (p.18), it is estimated that.
It would cost from US$ 17.2 – 33 billion per year The estimated benefit in reduced climate change is US$ 3.2 trillion The above would be a good return on the initial investment. By contrast, waiting 10 more years could reduce the net benefit of halving deforestation by US$ 500 billion.
(The BBC puts that saving in a range, of $2 - 5 trillion, dwarfing costs of the banking crisis .)
The G8 nations, together with 5 major emerging economies — China, India, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico — use almost three-quarters of the Earth’s biocapacity An estimated 40% of world trade is based on biological products or processes.
Regardless of what one thinks about trying to put a monetary value on parts of the environment, the above numbers add to the case that taking care of the environment is important. (This particular issue is explored a bit further on this site’s page on why biodiversity is important.)
Other Related Global Issues and Causes.
Why is it that these problems seem to be in developing countries? Don’t they know how to take care of their environment? That is what many ask in the industrialized nations. What people in the richer countries often fail to realize is that often their very own lending hand has been the one that takes most of what the environment has to offer, often in an unsustainable way. The debt that the poor countries are in has led to the stripping of resources in order to pay back what is owed. Aprender mais:
This web site’s look at Consumption and consumerism provides a deeper look at the enormous costs to society and to the environment by certain consumption habits. Given that the culture of consumption is so central to most societies today, it is often the system itself that is very wasteful. This web site’s page on Debt and the Environment has more about the effects of debt on poverty and the environment. this web site’s page on structural adjustment has more details of how debt has occurred and the structural adjustment policies that have led to governments stripping their environmental resources, reducing the cost of labor, exporting more to the industrialized countries, often without feeding their own people first, repaying more debt than spending on health or education, and so on. We have seen a glimpse of how the environment is related to global policies that have caused poverty and how poverty can affect the environment. Slowly, projects are helping at the local level for people to take ownership of their environment and help foster a sustainable development cycle. However, globalization, in its current form may have additional effects on the environment too. To learn more about how trade and poverty in general are related, go to this web site’s section on Trade, Economy, & Related Issues. The Genetically Engineered Food section in this web site also discusses issues to do with patenting foods and seeds and introduces issues to do with the importance of agricultural diversity and other issues related to patents on genetic resources. Priscila Néri, from the social justice organization, Witness, posts an informative video asking if environmental rights are human rights. The point made is that for many communities, the environment provides a means for them to live. Environmental degradation jeopardizes that and as such, threaten their human rights too; the two are interwoven:
Where next?
Compartilhar isso.
Bookmark or share this with others using some popular social bookmarking web sites:
Link to this page from your site/blog.
Copy/paste the following HTML code to your page:
… to produce this:
Anup Shah, Loss of Biodiversity and Extinctions, Global Issues , Updated: January 19, 2014.
Alternatively, copy/paste the following MLA citation format for this page:
Author and Page Information.
by Anup Shah Created: Monday, July 20, 1998 Last Updated: Sunday, January 19, 2014.
Navegação.
Compartilhar isso.
Page-related navigation.
Page Options.
Related Issues.
Vídeos relacionados.
Notícias relacionadas.
Navegação no site.
Páginas mais populares.
Atualizado recentemente.
Useful Resources.
Anúncios
Outras opções.
“Give a man a fish; você o alimentou hoje. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime.” — Old Chinese Saying.
Document Revision History.
Alternatives for broken links.
Sometimes links to other sites may break beyond my control. Where possible, alternative links are provided to backups or reposted versions here.

Nigeria national biodiversity strategy and action plan

PI: Anong Damian Nota, University of Buea.
U. S. Partner: Thomas Smith, University of California, Los Angeles.
U. S. Partner: Bin Gao, University of Florida.
PI: Adey Desta, Addis Ababa University.
U. S. Partner: Nancy Love, University of Michigan.
Ethiopia - Project 5-610: Improved access and uptake of maternal and child health services in rural Ethiopia through collaborative community and health systems partnership.
U. S. Partner: Judd Walson, University of Washington.
U. S. Partner: Benjamin Zaitchik, Johns Hopkins University.
U. S. Partner: Douglas Cook, University of California, Davis.
PI: Belachew Gessesse with co-PI Nigus Gabbiye Habtu, Bahir Dar University.
U. S. Partner: Suman Banerjee, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
U. S. Partner: David Sabatini, University of Oklahoma.
PI: Seifu Tilahun, Bahir Dar University.
U. S. Partner: Christopher Barrett, Cornell University.
U. S. Partner: Marilyn Warburton, USDA ARS Corn Host Plant Resistance Research Unit.
PI: Gabriel Takyi, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Tecnologia.
U. S. Partner: Christiana Honsberg and Mani G. TamizMani, Arizona State University.
U. S. Partner: Steven J. Schwartz, The Ohio State University.
PI: David Cudjoe Adukpo, University of Cape Coast.
U. S. Partner: William Gutowski, Jr., Iowa State University.
U. S. Partner: Peter Leimbruger, Smithsonian Institution.
U. S. Partner: Andres Perez, University of Minnesota.
U. S. Partner: Scott Goetz, Woods Hole Research Cente.
U. S. Partner: Samuel Wasser and David Schindel, Smithsonian Institution.
U. S. Partner: David Schindel, Smithsonian Institution.
U. S. Partner: David Schindel, Smithsonian Institution.
U. S. Partner: Scott Miller, Smithsonian Institution.
U. S. Partner: Cynthia Ebinger, University of Rochester.
PI: Izael Da Silva, Strathmore University.
U. S. Partner: Benjamin L. Ruddell, Arizona State University.
PI: Marguerite Miheso O'Connor, Kenyatta University.
U. S. Partner: Bruce N. Walker, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Kenya - Project 2-447: Capacity building in fish biodiversity discovery in Kenya.
U. S. Partner: Henry Bart Jr., Tulane University.
PI: Steven Runo, Kenyatta University.
U. S. Partner: Mike P. Timko, University of Virginia.
PI: Mary Baaru, Kenyatta University.
U. S. Partner: Ethan Allen, Pacific Resources for Education and Learning.
PI: Joyce Gichiku Maina, University of Nairobi.
U. S. Partner: Irene Kimaru, St. John Fisher College.
PI: Willis Owino, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, with co-PI Jane Ambuko, University of Nairobi.
U. S. Partner: James Giovannoni, USDA-ARS, Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, Cornell University.
Kenya - Project 1-382: Natural resources interacting with health outcomes: understanding fishery resource use and improving nutrition in western Kenya.
PI: Richard Magerenge, Organic Health Response-Ekialo Kiona Center.
U. S. Partner: Justin Brashares, University of California, Berkeley.
PI: Shem Wandiga, University of Nairobi.
U. S. Partner: Benito Mariñas, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, formerly Mark Shannon (deceased, October 2012)
PI: Peter Njoroge, National Museums of Kenya.
U. S. Partner: Matthew Johnson, Humboldt State University.
PI: Onesmus Gachuno, University of Nairobi.
U. S. Partner: James Kiarie, University of Nairobi.
PI: Judith Kimiywe, Kenyatta University.
U. S. Partner: Stephen McGarvey, Brown University.
U. S. Partner: Brett Scheffers, University of Florida.
PI: Andrianjaka Ravelomanana, Madagascar Biodiversity Center.
U. S. Partner: Brian Fisher, California Academy of Sciences.
PI: Jimmy Namangale, Chancellor College.
U. S. Partner: G. Philip Robertson, Michigan State University.
PI: Frank Chimbwandira, Malawi Ministry of Health.
U. S. Partner: Matthias Egger, University of Bern.
PI: Amadou Sidibé, IPR/IFRA Katibougou.
U. S. Partner: Laura Scmitt Olabisi, Michigan State University.
PI: Fadiala Dembele, Institute Politechnique Rural of Katibougou.
U. S. Partner: Paul Laris, California State University, Long Beach.
PI: Amadou Babana, University of Sciences, Techniques and Technologies of Bamako (USTTB)
U. S. Partners: David Weller, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Wheat Health, Genetics and Quality Research Unit and Dr. Linda Kinkel, University of Minnesota.
PI: Alassane Dicko, University of Bamako.
U. S. Partner: Patrick Duffy, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
PI: Salomao Bandeira, Universidade Eduardo Mondlane.
U. S. Partner: Ilka C. Feller, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center.
PI: Lucia da Costa Vieira, Beira Operations Research Center (CIOB)
U. S. Partner: James Pfeiffer, University of Washington.
PI: Adegoke Melodi with co-PI Olatubosun Olabode, The Federal University of Technology, Akure.
U. S. Partner: Kevin Tomsovic, University of Tennessee.
PI: Morufat Balogun, University of Ibadan.
U. S. Partner: Wayne Curtis, The Pennsylvania State University.
PI: Idris Bugaje, National Research Institute for Chemical Technology.
U. S. Partner: Bernard J. Van Wie, Washington State University.
PI: Donald Grant, Lassa Fever Program Kenema Government Hospital.
U. S. Partner: Robert Garry, Tulane University School of Medicine.
PI: Yacine Badiane Ndour, Institut Senegalais de Recherches Agricoles.
U. S. Partner: Richard P. Dick, Ohio State University.
PI: Mouhamadou Bamba Sylla, Ecole Supérieure Polytechnique de l’Université Cheikh Anta Diop.
U. S. Partner: Jeremy Pal, Loyola Marymount University.
U. S. Partner: Brian Chaffin, University of Montana, Missoula.
U. S. Partner: James Smith, University of Virginia.
PI: Pascal Bessong, University of Venda.
U. S. Partner: James Smith, University of Virginia.
PI: Bice Martincigh, University of KwaZulu-Natal.
U. S. Partner: Natalie Mladenov, San Diego State University.
South Africa - Project 5-48: Characterizing and tracking of antimicrobial resistance in the water-plant-food public health interface: an emerging water, sanitation and hygiene issue.
U. S. Partner: Manan Sharma, Environmental Microbial and Food Safety Laboratory, USDA/ARS.
U. S. Partner: Richard Healy, USGS.
U. S. Partner: Stephen Ventura, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
U. S. Partner: Todd M. Anderson, Wake Forest University.
PI: Lesley Gordon Underhill, University of Cape Town, with co-PI Robert Peter Millar, University of Pretoria.
U. S. Partners: Walter Jetz, Yale University, and Robert Guralnik, University of Colorado at Boulder.
South Africa - Project 2-445: Application of cosmic ray probes for the validation of hydrometeorolgical and remote sensing models.
U. S. Partner: Marek Zreda, University of Arizona.
PI: Andrew McKechnie, University of Pretoria.
U. S. Partner: Blair Wolf, University of New Mexico.
PI: Hlanganani Tutu, University of the Witwatersrand.
U. S. Partner: Edward Rosenberg, University of Montana.
U. S. Partner: Mark Cohen, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
PI: Cecil King’ondu, Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology, with co-PI Owino Joseph Hazael Odero, South Eastern Kenya University.
U. S. Partner: Puxian Gao, University of Connecticut.
PI: Kisioki Moitiko and co-PI Robert Lange, The International Collaborative for Science, Education, and the Environment (Tanzania)
U. S. Partner: Krister Andersson, University of Colorado.
PIs: Madundo Mtambo and Burton Mwamila, The Nelson Mandela African Institute of Science and Technology.
U. S. Partner: Padmanabhan Seshaiyer , George Mason University.
PI: Joseph Ndunguru, Mikocheni Agricultural Research Institute.
U. S. Partner: Linda Hanley-Bowdoin, North Carolina State University.
U. S. Partner: Jesse Poland, Kansas State University.
PI: Elizeus Rutebemberwa, Makerere University.
U. S. Partner: Robert Pack, East Tennessee State University.
U. S. Partner: Forrest Melton, California State University Monterey Bay, and the NASA Ames Research Center Cooperative for Research in Earth Science and Technology (NASA ARC-CREST)
U. S. Partner: Mathew Rodell, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.
U. S. Partner: Ivette Perfecto, University of Michigan.
PI: Achilles Katamba, Makerere University.
U. S. Partner: Adithya Cattamanchi, University of California at San Francisco.
PI: Anthony Mbonye, Makerere University.
U. S. Partner: Philip LaRussa, Columbia University.
U. S. Partner: Jennifer Jacobs, University of New Hampshire.
Afghanistan - Project 5-183: Impact of climate change on runoff from glaciers, snow, and rainfall in the Pamir and Hindu Kush Mountains: a comparison of Amu Darya and Kabul River basins.
U. S. Partners: Ulrich Kamp, University of Montana and Daniel Fagre, United States Geological Survey.
Afghanistan - 5-74: Regionalization of the Global Integrated Drought Monitoring and Prediction System (GIDMaPS) for Afghanistan.
U. S. Partner: Amir AghaKouchak, University of California, Irvine.
Afghanistan - Project 5-33: Determination of floods magnitude projection, causes, vulnerable areas and its solutions: a cause study of Kabul River basin.
U. S. Partner: Jonathan Nelson, United States Geological Survey.
U. S. Partner: Devendra M. Amatya, USDA Forest Service Center for Forested Wetlands Research.
U. S. Partner: Jeff Dozier, University of California, Santa Barbara.
U. S. Partner: Douglas A Landis, Michigan State University.
PI: A. B.M, Kamal Pasha, Daffodil International University.
U. S. Partner: Demetrios Gatziolis, The United States Forest Service.
PI: Humnath Bhandari, International Rice Research Institute (IRRI)
U. S. Partner: Charles (Chuck) W. Rice, Kansas State University.
PI: Lutfe Ara, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr, b)
U. S. Partner: Eben Kenah, University of Florida.
U. S. Partner: Faisal Hossain, University of Washington.
PI: Zahirul Khan, Institute of Water Modeling.
U. S. Partner: Faisal Hossain, University of Washington.
PI: Ahammadul Kabir, Asia Arsenic Network.
U. S. Partner: Lutgarde Raskin, University of Michigan.
U. S. Partner: Thomas Juenger, University of Texas at Austin.
PI: Muhammad Salah Uddin Khan, ICDDR.
U. S. Partner: Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance Inc.
PI: Syed Humayun Akhter, Dhaka University.
U. S. Partner: Michael Steckler, Columbia University.
PI: Anisur Rahman, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr, b)
U. S. Partner: Randall Kuhn, University of Denver.
U. S. Partner: Kevin Megown, Remote Sensing Applications Center.
PI: Phauk Sophany, Royal University of Phnom Penh.
U. S. Partner: Kevin Johnson, Illinois Natural History Survey.
PI: Chivorn Var, National Institute of Public Health (NIPH)
U. S. Partner: Richard Oberhelman, Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine.
Partner: Deepak Sagi, GE India.
USDA Forest Service Collaborator: Susan Cordell, Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry.
PI: Indra Sen and co-PI Rajiv Sinha, Indian Institute of Technology--Kanpur.
U. S. Partner: Bernhard Peucker-Ehrenbrink, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
PI: Krushnamegh Kunte, National Center for Biological Sciences.
U. S. Partner: Chris Simon, University of Connecticut.
U. S. Partner: Alexander Van Geen, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University.
PI: Harini Nagendra, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment.
U. S. Partner: Tom Evans, Indiana University.
India - Project PP-27: NSF-PIRE collaboration: developing low-carbon cities in India: focus on urban infrastructures, climate risks, and vulnerability.
U. S. Partner: Anu Ramaswami, University of Minnesota.
India - Project PP-26: NSF-PIRE collaboration: developing low-carbon cities in India: field research on water-energy-carbon baselines and low-carbon strategies in Indian cities.
U. S. Partner: Anu Ramaswami, University of Minnesota.
PI: Ida Astarini, Udayana University and BIONESIA.
U. S. Partner: Allen Collins, National Systematics Lab of NOAA’s Fisheries Service and Smithsonian Institution.
PI: Irwandi Irwandi, Syiah Kuala University.
U. S. Partner: Eugenia Etkina, Graduate School of Education, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
PI: Sonya Dewi, International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) aka World Agroforestry Centre.
U. S. Partner: Randall Kolka, USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station.
PI: Harkunti Pertiwi Rahayu, Institut Teknologi Bandung.
U. S. Partner: Louise Comfort, University of Pittsburgh.
PI: Bachti Alisjahbana, TB-HIV Research Center, Universitas Padjadjaran.
U. S. Partner: Megan Murray, Harvard Medical School.
U. S. Partner: Joel Kuipers, George Washington University.
U. S. Partner: Clifford Lane, US-NIAID.
U. S. Partner: Louise K. Comfort, University of Pittsburgh.
U. S. Partner: Phillip Crews, University of California Santa Cruz.
U. S. Partner: Justin Sheffield, Princeton University.
U. S. Partner: Jefferson Fox, East-West Center.
U. S. Partner: Louise Comfort, University of Pittsburgh.
U. S. Partner: Christopher Meyer, Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History.
U. S. Partner: Kyria Boundy-Mills, University of California, Davis.
U. S. Partner: Catherine Matthews, University of North Carolina, Greensboro.
U. S. Partner: Nathan Tintle, Dordt College.
U. S. Partner: Brian Hopkinson, University of Georgia.
U. S. Partner: Gregory R. Carmichael, University of Iowa.
U. S. Partner: Brian Pfleger, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
U. S. Partner: James Foster, University of Hawaii.
PI: Syamsidik, Tsunami and Disaster Mitigation Research Center, Syiah Kuala University.
U. S. Partner: Philip L-F. Liu, Cornell University.
U. S. Partner: Louise K. Comfort, University of Pittsburgh.
Indonesia - Project 3-82: Sediment transport evaluation on the Bengawan Solo River (downstream and estuary) to minimize sedimentation and flood combining effect on nearby infrastructure.
PI: Ria Asih Aryani Soemitro, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember.
U. S. Partner: Gangfeng Ma, Old Dominion University.
U. S. Partner: Eric Nelson Smith, University of Texas at Arlington.
PI: Wiratni Budhijanto, Universitas Gadjah Mada.
U. S. Partner: Largus T. Angenent, Cornell University.
PI: I Made Wiryana, Universitas Gunadarma.
U. S. Partner: Campbell Webb, Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University.
PI: Sri Yudawati Cahyarini with co-PI Intan Suci Nurhati, Indonesian Institute of Science (Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia)
U. S. Partner: Mike Evans, University of Maryland.
PI: Made Pharmawati, Universitas Udayana.
U. S. Partners: Forest Rohwer, San Diego State University, and Paul H. Barber, University of California, Los Angeles.
Indonesia - Project 2-319: Combating seagrass decline: developing a restoration manual for Indonesia and the Coral Triangle.
PI: Rohani Ambo-Rappe, Universitas Hasanuddin.
U. S. Partners: John J. Stachowicz and Susan L. Williams, University of California, Davis.
Indonesia - Project 2-232: Exploring the dynamic of extreme weather events in Indonesia using large scale meteorological pattern as the forecast guidance (pilot study: Indramayu, West Java)
U. S. Partner: Richard Grotjahn, University of California, Davis.
PI: Kamarza Mulia, Universitas Indonesia.
U. S. Partner: Lisa Hunter, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Indonesia - Project 1-235: Coral health surveys in COREMAP: building resilience in climate-impacted coral reefs of Indonesia.
U. S. Partner: C. Drew Harvell, Cornell University.
Indonesia - Project 1-208: Assessing degradation of tropical peat domes and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) export from the Belait, Mempawah, and Lower Kapuas rivers in Borneo.
U. S. Partner: Charles F. Harvey, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
PI: Abdul-Hamid Toha, State University of Papua.
U. S. Partner: Kent Carpenter, Old Dominion University.
PI: Frida Sidik, Institute for Marine Research and Observation, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries.
U. S. Partner: Ilka Feller, Smithsonian Institution.
PI: I Gusti Ngurah Kade Mahardika, Universitas Udayana.
U. S. Partner: Kent Carpenter, Old Dominion University.
Indonesia - Project 1-90: Strengthening research and teaching capacity of the Andalas University in climate change and natural resources management.
U. S. Partner: Brendan Buckley, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University.
PI: Sang Putu Kaler Surata, Mahasaraswati University.
U. S. Partner: John Stephen Lansing, University of Arizona Tucson.
U. S. Partner: Kerstin Klipstein-Grobusch, University Medical Center Utrecht.
PI: Hadi Pratomo, Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Indonesia.
U. S. Partner: Abdullah Baqui, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Indonesia – Project H2-2: Improving hospital care for breastfeeding support in Indonesia.
U. S. Partner: Valerie Flaherman, University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine.
Indonesia – Project H2-1: Impact of reduced in-home secondhand smoke exposure on low birthweight prevalence and neonate health.
U. S. Partner: Donald Bailey, Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International.
PI: Andani Eka Putra, Andalas University.
U. S. Partner: Megan Murray, Harvard Medical School.
PI: Rovina Ruslami, Universitas Padjadjaran.
U. S. Partner: H. Clifford Lane, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
PI: Farida Handayani, Ministry of Health, Republic of Indonesia.
U. S. Partner: David AuCoin, University of Nevada, Reno.
PI: Iwan Ariawan, Universitas Indonesia.
U. S. Partner: Muhammad Zaman, Boston University.
PI: Isra Wahid, Universitas Hasanuddin.
U. S. Partner: David Severson, University of Notre Dame.
U. S. Partner: Forrest Melton, California State University Monterey Bay, and the NASA Ames Research Center Cooperative for Research in Earth Science and Technology (NASA ARC-CREST)
U. S. Partner: Randall Koster, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.
PI: Baatarbileg Nachin, National University of Mongolia.
U. S. Partner: Amy Hessl, West Virginia University.
PI: Bud Mendsaikhan, Mongol Ecology Center.
U. S. Partner: Olaf Jensen, Rutgers University.
PI: Sereeter Lodoysamba, National University of Mongolia.
U. S. Partner: Christa Hasenkopf, University of Colorado.
PI: Basant Giri, Kathmandu Institute of Applied Sciences.
U. S. Partner: Toni Barstis, Saint Mary's College, Notre Dame, Indiana.
PI: Nama Budhathoki, Kathmandu Living Labs.
U. S. Partner: Kenneth Anderson, University of Colorado Boulder.
U. S. Partner: Walter Jetz, Yale University.
Nepal - Project 5-17: Cluster-controlled implementation science trial of integrated maternal newborn child healthcare delivery in group settings.
U. S. Partner: Duncan Maru, Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
PI: Rijan Bhakta Kayastha, Kathmandu University.
U. S. Partner: Mark W. Williams, University of Colorado.
PI: Sharat Verma, National Tuberculosis Center.
U. S. Partner: Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley.
U. S. Partner: Julie Kiang, U. S. Geological Survey, and Jerad Bales, U. S. Geological Survey.
U. S. Partners: Amir AghaKouchak, University of California, Irvine, and Konstantinos M. Andreadis, Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
U. S. Partner: Lauren Hay, USGS.
U. S. Partner: Tania Thomas, University of Virginia.
U. S. Partner: Falk Amelung, University of Miami.
PI: Maria Isabel Garcia, The Mind Museum (of the Bonifacio Art Foundation, Inc.)
U. S. Partner: Terrence Gosliner, California Academy of Sciences.
PI: Severino Salmo III, Ateneo de Manila University.
U. S. Partner: Ilka Feller, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Smithsonian Institution.
U. S. Partner: Terrence Gosliner, California Academy of Sciences.
PI: Maria Carmen Ablan Lagman, De La Salle University.
U. S. Partner: Kent Carpenter, Old Dominion University.
PI: Marivic G. Pajaro, Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources.
U. S. Partner: Douglas Medin, Northwestern University.
U. S. Partner: Jonathon Winickoff, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School.
U. S. Partner: Kristy Murray, Baylor College of Medicine.
PI: Anna Ma. Lena Lopez, Institute of Child Health and Human Development, University of the Philippines Manila--National Institutes of Health.
U. S. Partner: Karin Nielsen, David Geffen UCLA School of Medicine.
U. S. Partner: Bradfield Lyon, International Research Institute for Climate and Society, Lamont-Doherty Earth Institute at Columbia University.
PI: Pay Drechsel, International Water Management Institute, with co-PI Vijayaraghavan M. Chariar, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi.
U. S. Partner: James Elser, Arizona State University.
PI: Lareef Zubair, Foundation for Environment, Climate and Technology, Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka.
Co-PI: Piyasena Wickramagamage, University of Peradeniya.
U. S. Partner: Adam H. Sobel, Columbia University.
U. S. Partner: Mark Williams, University of Colorado Boulder.
U. S. Partner: Mary Brodzik, University of Colorado Boulder.
PI: Vilas Nitivattananon, Asian Institute of Technology; with co-PIs Sangam Shrestha, AIT; Thanapon Piman, Stockholm Environmental Institute; and Chheng Phen, Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute.
U. S. Partner: John Sabo, Arizona State University.
Thailand and Burma - Project 2-473: Analysis of historical forest carbon changes in Burma and Thailand and the contribution of climate variability and extreme weather events.
U. S. Partners: Merryl Alber and Monique Y. LeClerc, University of Georgia.
Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam - Project 2-93: Biodiversity and conservation in the Lower Mekong: empowering female herpetologists through capacity building and regional networking.
U. S. Partner: Bryan L. Stuart, North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences.
PI: Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh, Asian Institute of Technology.
Co-PIs: Hoang Xuan Co, Hanoi University of Sciences Vietnam National University; Asep Sofyan, Institute of Technology Bandung; and Nguyen Tri Quang Hung, Nong Lam University.
U. S. Partner: Philip Hopke, Clarkson University.
PI: Oyture Anarbekov, International Water Management Institute - Central Asia Office.
U. S. Partner: James Ayars, United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service.
Uzbekistan - Project 5-523: Implications of climate change, land use and adaptation interventions on water resources and agricultural production in Transboundary Amu Darya river basin.
PI: Zafar Gafurov, International Water Management Institute (IWMI)
U. S. Partner: John Bolten, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)
U. S. Partner: Antarpreet Jutla, West Virginia University.
U. S. Partner: Robert Nowak, University of Nevada, Reno.
U. S. Partner: Benjamin F. Zaitchik, Johns Hopkins University.
U. S. Partner: James Ayars, USDA-ARS Water Management Unit.
PI: Kristina Toderich, International Center for Biosaline Agriculture.
U. S. Partner: Laurel Saito, University of Nevada.
PI: Dang Thuy Binh, Institute for Biotechnology and Environment, Nha Trang University; with co-PIs Chheng Phen, Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute; Latsamy Phounvisouk, Living Aquatic Resources Research Center; Chaiwut Grudpan, Ubon Ratchathani University; and Mie Mie Kyaw, University of Mandalay.
U. S. Partner: Jeffrey Williams, Smithsonian Institution.
PI: Ngo Thi Thuy Huong, Vietnam Research Centre on Karst and Geoheritage of the Vietnam Institute of Geosciences and Mineral Resources.
U. S. Partner: James Landmeyer, U. S. Geological Survey.
PI: Nguyen Van Hung, Vietnam National Tuberculosis Program.
U. S. Partner: Payam Nahid, University of California, San Francisco.
U. S. Partner: Mark Eakin, NOAA Coral Reef Watch.
U. S. Partner: John Bolten, NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center.
U. S. Partner: Volker Radeloff, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
U. S. Partner: Faisal Hossain, University of Washington.
U. S. Partners: Carol Xiaohui Song and Venkatesh Merwade, Purdue University.
PI: Minh Le, Central Institute for Natural Resources and Environmental Studies of Vietnam National University (VNU-CRES), with co-PIs Seak Sophat, Royal University of Phnom Penh, and Sengdeuane Wayakone, National University of Laos.
U. S. Partner: Mary Blair, The American Museum of Natural History.
U. S. Partner: Kent Carpenter, Old Dominion University.
PI: Pham T. K. Trang, Hanoi University of Science.
U. S. Partner: Benjamin Carlos Bostick and Alexander Van Geen, Columbia University.
PI: Tho H. Nguyen, Tan Tao University.
U. S. Partner: Brian Bingham, University of Hawaii.
PI: Dang Thuy Binh, Nha Trang University.
U. S. Partner: Kent E. Carpenter, Old Dominion University.
Vietnam - Project 1-319: Research and capacity building on REDD+, livelihoods, and vulnerability in Vietnam: developing tools for social analysis of development planning.
Co-PIs: Nguyen Viet Dung, PanNature--Center for People and Nature Reconciliation; and Tran Huu Nghi, Tropenbos International Vietnam.
U. S. Partner: Pamela McElwee, Rutgers University.
U. S. Partner: Stephen Schoenholtz, Virginia Water Resources Research Center.
PI: Khachatur Meliksetian, Institute of Geological Sciences, Armenian National Academy of Sciences.
U. S. Partner: Charles Connor, University of South Florida.
PI: Tea Godoladze, Ilia State University, with co-PIs Arkadi Karakhanyan (deceased, November 2017), Institute of Geological Sciences, Armenian Academy of Sciences; and Fakhraddin Abulfat oglu Kadirov, Institute of Geology, Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences.
U. S. Partner: Robert Reilinger, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
PI: Mikheil Elashvili, Ilia State University.
U. S. Partner: Louise Kellogg, University of California, Davis.
PI: Maria de la Mercedes Iriarte Puña, Centro de Aguas y Saneamiento Ambiental, Universidad Mayor de San Simon.
U. S. Partner: James Mihelcic, University of South Florida.
U. S. Partner: Jorge Rodrigues, University of California Davis.
Brazil - Project 5-9: History and diversification of floodplain forest bird communities in Amazonia: towards an integrated conservation plan.
U. S. Partner: Joel Cracraft, American Museum of Natural History.
U. S. Partner: Keith Willmott, University of Florida.
U. S. Partner: Stephen Perz, University of Florida.
U. S. Partner: Pierre Gentine, Columbia University.
U. S. Partner: James Cole, Michigan State University.
U. S. Partner: Michael Keller, USDA-Forest Service.
U. S. Partner: James Gibbs, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry.
U. S. Partner: Kirk Winemiller, Texas A&M University.
Brazil - Project 3-198: Biodiversity and socioeconomic impacts of palm oil bioenergy development in the Brazilian Amazon.
PI: Rodrigo Medeiros, Conservation International do Brasil, with co-PI Luciano Montag, Universidade Federal do Pará
U. S. Partner: Kathleen E. Halvorsen, Michigan Technological University.
PI: Rodrigo Feitosa, Universidade Federal do Paraná
U. S. Partner: Kenneth G. Ross, University of Georgia, Athens.
PI: Guarino Colli, Universidade de Brasília, with co-PIs Ben Hur Marimon Junior, Universidade do Estado do Mato Grosso, and Fernanda Werneck, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia–INPA.
U. S. Partner: Barry Raymond Sinervo, University of California, Santa Cruz.
PI: Bruno Henrique Pimentel Rosado, Centro de Gestão de Pesquisa, Desenvolvimento e Inovação – CGPDI.
U. S. Partner: Scott Saleska, University of Arizona.
PI: Aristóteles Góes-Neto, Centro de Excelência em Bioinformática, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz)
U. S. Partner: Priscila Chaverri, University of Maryland.
PI: Thiago Parente, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz) (formerly at Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro)
U. S. Partner: Mark Hahn, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
U. S. Partner: Jennifer K. Balch, University of Colorado, Boulder.
U. S. Partner: Robert Brakenridge, Dartmouth Flood Observatory (DFO), CSDMS, INSTAAR, University of Colorado.
PI: Victor Cantillo, Universidad del Norte.
U. S. Partner: José Holguin Veras, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
PI: Juan Castaño, Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira.
U. S. Partner: Jay Martin, The Ohio State University.
PI: Julio Eduardo Cañón, Universidad de Antioquia.
U. S. Partner: Francina Dominguez, University of Arizona.
U. S. Partner: Gerald Bauer, US Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry.
PI: Eduardo David Sagredo Robles, Universidad Tecnológica Santiago.
U. S. Partner: Naphtali David Rishe, Florida International University.
PI: Carlos Mena, Universidad San Francisco de Quito.
U. S. Partner: Thomas Rudel, Rutgers University.
PIs: Juan Manuel Guayasamin, Universidad Tecnológica Indoamérica, and Andrea Encalada, Universidad San Francisco de Quito.
U. S. Partner: LeRoy Poff, Colorado State University.
U. S. Partner: Carlos Castillo-Chavez, Arizona State University.
PI: José Fredy Cruz, Universidad de El Salvador.
U. S. Partner: John S. Gierke, Michigan Technological University.
PI: Rochambeau Lainy, Groupe d'Initiative pour l'Etude de la Cognition du Langage, de l'Apprentissage et des Troubles (GIECLAT)
U. S. Partner: Sara Schley, Rochester Institute of Technology.
PI: Rene Jean-Jumeau, Universite Quisqueya.
U. S. Partner: Jerry Bauer, International Institute of Tropical Forestry.
U. S. Partner: Brian O'Neill, National Center for Atmospheric Research.
PI: Julio Sacramento-Rivero, Universidad Autonoma de Yucatán.
U. S. Partner: Kathy Halvorsen et al., Michigan Technological University.
PI: Jorge Alberto Huete-Pérez, Universidad Centroamericana.
U. S. Partner: Martin Polz, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
PI: Johny Cesar Ponce-Canchihuamán, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia & the Center for Research in Environmental Health (CREEH Perú)
U. S. Partner: Alexander van Geen, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University.
Peru - Project 5-259: AGUA-ANDES: ecological infrastructure strategies for enhancing water sustainability in the semi-arid Andes.
PI: Bram Willems, Centro de Competencias del Agua - CCA.
U. S. Partner: Andrea Gerlak, University of Arizona.
U. S. Partner: Miles Silman, Wake Forest University.
U. S. Partner: Bryan G. Mark, The Ohio State University.
PI: Bram Leo Willems, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
U. S. Partner: Christopher Scott, The University of Arizona.
PI: Luis Suarez, Instituto Geofisico del Peru (formerly at Universidad Continental)
U. S. Partner: Detlev Helmig, University of Colorado at Boulder.
PI: Roberto Zegarra Balcazar and Felio Carderon La Torre, (former PIs Karen Kraft and Julio F. Alegría), AEDES - Asociación Especializada para el Desarrollo Sostenible.
U. S. Partner: Joerg Schaefer, Columbia University.
Egypt - Project 5-601: Capacity building of health care providers in Egypt to counsel pregnant women and their families regarding smoking cessation and second hand smoking avoidance.
U. S. Partner: Scott Sherman, New York University.
U. S. Partner: Cheryl Oncken, University of Connecticut.
PI: Alaa Ibrahim, American University in Cairo.
U. S. Partner: Allison Steiner, University of Michigan.
PI: El Sayed Abbas Zaghloul, National Authority for Remote Sensing and Space Sciences.
U. S. Partner: Magaly Koch, Boston University.
PI: Tikrit University.
U. S. Partner: Matthew Tarr, University of New Orleans.
PI: Nadia Al-Mudaffar, Marine Science Centre.
U. S. Partner: Brian Helmuth, Northeastern University, Marine Science Center.
PI: Suhad Yasin, University of Duhok.
U. S. Partner: Vince Beachley, Rowan University.
PI: Mahdi Ibrahim Aoda, Baghdad University.
U. S. Partners: G. Phillip Robertson and Alvin J. M. Smucker, Michigan State University.
PI: Christy Jo Geraci, The American University of Iraq, Sulaimani.
U. S. Partners: Ann Rypstra and David Berg, Miami University of Ohio.
U. S. Partner: Shannon Bartelt-Hunt, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
U. S. Partner: Raghavan Srinivasan, Texas A&M University.
PI: Rana Dajani, Jordan Society for Scientific Research.
U. S. Partner: Gillian Bowser, Colorado State University.
PI: Samer Talozi, Jordan University of Science and Technology.
U. S. Partner: Steven M. Gorelick, Stanford University.
U. S. Partner: Mehmet Can Vuran, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
PI: Yaser Jararweh, Jordan University of Science and Technology.
U. S. Partner: George Jenerette, University of California, Riverside.
PI: Mo'ayyad Shawaqfah, Al al-Bayt University.
U. S. Partner: Mark Stone, University of New Mexico.
U. S. Partner: Diane Blake, Tulane University.
U. S. Partner: David Sedlak, University of California, Berkeley.
U. S. Partner: Joseph Wartman, University of Washington.
PI: Joanna Doummar, American University of Beirut.
U. S. Partner: Jason G. Gurdak, San Francisco State University.
PI: Naji N. Khoury, Notre Dame University-Louaize.
U. S. Partner: Michael A. Mooney, Colorado School of Mines.
PI: Charbel Afif, Université Saint Joseph de Beyrouth.
U. S. Partner: Sebastien Dusanter, University of Indiana.
PI: Grace Abou-Jaoude, Lebanese American University.
U. S. Partner: Joseph Wartman, University of Washington.
PI: Mutasem El Fadel, American University of Beirut.
U. S. Partner: James Smith, Princeton University.
PI: George Mitri, University of Balamand.
U. S. Partner: David McWethy, Montana State University.
PI: Antoine Ghauch, American University of Beirut.
U. S. Partner: Richard Luthy, Stanford University.
Morocco - Project 5-648: Data science for improved education and employability in Morocco.
U. S. Partner: Kathleen Carley, Carnegie Mellon University.
U. S. Partner: Driss Benhaddou, University of Houston.
U. S. Partner: Paul Flikkema, Northern Arizona University.
PI: Abdelhadi Soudi, Ecole Nationale de l'Industrie Minérale.
U. S. Partner: Corinne Vinopol, Institute for Disabilities Research and Training, Inc.
PI: Abdelhadi Soudi, Ecole National de l'Industrie Minerale.
U. S. Partner: Corinne Vinopol, Institute for Disabilities Research and Training, Inc.
PI: Sami Sayadi, Center of Biotechnology of Sfax.
U. S. Partner: Walter Mulbry, United States Department of Agriculture/ Agricultural Research Service.
Tunisia - Project 5-518: Diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis: development and evaluation of multiplex POC DNA assays.
PI: Ikram Guizani, Institut Pasteur de Tunis.
U. S. Partner: Steven Reed, Infectious Disease Research Institute.
Tunisia - Project 5-195: Potential of currents along the Tunisia coasts for renewable power generation.
PI: Ali Harzallah, National Institute of Marine Science and Technologies.
U. S. Partner: Wassila Thiaw, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
PI: Nadia Chérif, National Institute of Sea Sciences and Technologies (INSTM)
U. S. Partner: James Winton, United States Geological Survey.
PI: Zoubeida Kebaili Bargaoui, Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs de Tunis.
U. S. Partner: Kelly Caylor, Princeton University.
PI: Issam A. Al-Khatib, Birzeit University.
U. S. Partners: Defne S. Apul, University of Toledo, and Steve Burian, University of Utah.
500 Fifth Street, NW | Washington, DC 20001 | T. 202.334.2000.

Georgia Guidestones Vandalized.
Friday, December 12, 2008.
Why The Population Bomb Is a Rockefeller Baby.
This areticle was published in 1970.
From the vaults: this piece by Steve Weissman was originally published in Ramparts in 1970. Ramparts was a literary quarterly for the left-leaning cognoscente that ran from 1962 to 1975 and whose contributors included Tariq Ali and Alexander Cockburn. Only a select few articles have made it online or been digitised. This is now one of them, a piece sent to us by Michael Barker. Its interesting to see what has — and hasn’t — changed in the population debate and political climate in the four decades since.
Steve Weissman, ‘Why The Population Bomb Is a Rockefeller Baby’, in Ramparts, Eco-Catastrophe (1970), pp. 27-41.
Paul Ehrlich is a nice man. He doesn’t hate blacks, advocate genocide or defend the empire. He simply believes that the world has too many people and he’s ready at the drop of a diaper pin to say so. He’s written his message in The Population Bomb , lectured it in universities and churches, and twice used America’s own form of birth control, the late-night Johnny Carson Show, to regale bleary-eyed moms and dads with tales of a standing-room-only world, a time of famines, plague and pestilence.
Together with Berkeley’s Kingsley Davis and Santa Barbara’s Garrett Hardin , Ehrlich represents a newly-popular school of academics out to make overpopulation the central menace of our age. Except for a still hesitant Pope, their crusade seems sure of success. Everyone from Arthur Godfrey to beat poet Gary Snyder to the leaders of China’s 700,000,000 (whom the populationists alternately ignore and disparage) now agrees that population growth is a problem and that something must be done. The question is what? Or, more precisely, who will do what … and to whom?
Kingsley Davis, who finds voluntary family planning hopelessly futile, suggests that government postpone the age of marriage. Garrett Hardin in the April 22 Teach-In’s Environmental Handbook urges mutual coercion mutually agreed upon. Paul Ehrlich wants to eliminate tax exemptions for more than two children, forgetting that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Voluntary family planning is out and population control in, leaving those less kindly disposed to the government to see the gaunt spectre of genocide. Long before even the least of the predicted ecological catastrophes comes to pass, such fears might well turn race on race, young on old, rich on poor.
Ehrlich, recognizing this danger, aims his appeal for smaller families less toward the poor and black than toward the white middle-class American family, which consumes more resources, occupies more space, and creates more waste than any ten of its economic inferiors. But his appeal, while barely denting the great waste-production economy, will only create the self-righteousness to impose America’s middle-class will on the world.
We “are going to have to adopt some very tough foreign policy positions,” Ehrlich explains, and limiting our own families will let us do that “from a psychologically strong position … We must use our political power to push other countries into programs which combine agricultural development and population control.” Exactly what kind of power, or whether we would use it globally, or simply in countries which food shipments and “green revolutions” might save from starvation, is unclear. But he hints at a time when we might put temporary sterilants in food and water, while some of his more adventurous colleagues, no doubt impressed by pinpoint bombing in Southeast Asia, would spray whole populations from the air. If we’re so willing to napalm peasants to protect them from Communists, we could quite easily use a little sterilant spray to protect them from themselves.
We really needn’t speculate, however, Uses of the new over-population scare are quite out of the hands of either nice academics or average anti-Communist Americans. The same elites and institutions which made America the world’s policemen have long been eager to serve as the world’s prophylactic and agricultural provisioner, and they are damned grateful to the academics for creating a new humanitarian justification for the age-old game of empire. The academics shouldn’t really get the credit though. The heavies had it all planned out back in the ’50s, while young Dr. Ehrlich was still studying water snakes in the western end of Lake Erie.
THE ROCKEFELLER FAMILY PLAN.
In June 1952, John D. Rockefeller III , father of four, eldest grandson of Standard Oil and chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation, hosted a highly select conference on population in Colonial Williamsburg. To this showpiece of historical conservation, restored by the Rockefellers to its pre-Revolutionary beauty, came some 30 of the nation’s most eminent conservationists, public health experts, Planned Parenthood leaders, agriculturalists, demographers and social scientists. After two and a half days of intensive discussion, they agreed to form a new group which could act as “a coordinating and catalytic agent in the broad field of population.” The following fall, John D. publicly christened The Population Council and announced that he himself would serve as its first president. With this act of baptism, the population bomb became a Rockefeller baby.
In the decades previous, birth control had been largely small potatoes. The Rockefeller Foundation, together with the Milbank Memorial Fund, had, in 1936, provided John D.’s alma mater, Princeton, with an Office of Population Research. Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, Florida and the Carolinas pioneered programs for the (sometimes voluntary) sterilization of the poor. Planned Parenthood, a direct descendant of Margaret Sanger ‘s American Birth Control League, struggled to provide America’s poor with free counsel and contraceptives. Guy Irving Burch ‘s Population Reference Bureau, long the leading educator on population dynamics, was little more than a one-man show, as was the Hugh Moore Fund, set up in 1944 by the founder and board chairman of Dixie Cup “to call to the attention of the American Public the dangers inherent in the population explosion.”
Once the Rockefellers joined the family, however, family planning became a very different kind of business. The Ford Foundation, Carnegie, the Commonwealth and Community Funds, the Molt Trust and the Mellons joined with John D., his mother, his sister (wife of banker Jean Mauze ), his brother and their financial adviser, AEC chairman Lewis Strauss , in pumping fresh blood and money into the Population Council, some of which even trickled over into the Reference Bureau and Planned Parenthood. Wealthy Englishmen and Swedes and their third world associates joined with the Americans in making Planned Parenthood international. The World Bank, headed by Chase National Bank vice president and future Population Council director Eugene Black , put its money behind Princeton’s pioneer study on population and economic growth in India. Where birth controllers once went begging, now guest lists at Planned Parenthood banquets and signatures on ubiquitous New York Times ads read like a cross between the Social Register and Standard and Poor’s Directory of Corporation Executives.
This sudden interest of the world’s rich in the world’s poor, whatever the humanitarian impulse, made good dollars and cents. World War II had exhausted the older colonial empires, and everywhere the cry of nationalism sounded: from Communists in China and Southeast Asia, from neutralists in Indonesia and India, from independence movements in Africa and from use of their own oil and iron ore and, most menacing, the right to protect themselves against integration in an international marketplace which systematically favored the already-industrialized.
But the doughty old buzzards of empire were determined to save the species. They would pay deference to the new feelings by encouraging a bit of light industry here, and perhaps even a steel mill there. To give the underdeveloped areas what Nelson Rockefeller termed “a community of interest with us,” and to extend control, they would give public loans and foreign aid for roads, dams and schools. Their foundations and universities would train a new class of native managers who, freed from outmoded ideologies, would clearly see that there was more than enough for both rich and poor.
But there wasn’t enough, especially not when the post-war export of death-control technology created so many more of the poor. The poor nations rarely came close to providing even the limited economic security which, as in Europe of the Industrial Revolution, would encourage people to give up the traditional peasant security of a large family and permit the population curve to level off. In fact, for much of the population, the newly-expanded money economy actually increased insecurity. Faced with this distortion between fertility and development, developed country elites could see no natural way of stopping population growth. All they could see was people, people, people, each one threatening the hard-won stability which guaranteed access to the world’s ores and oil, each one an additional competitor for the use of limited resources.
More people, moreover, meant younger people, gunpowder for more than a mere population explosion. “The restlessness produced in a rapidly growing population is magnified by the preponderance of youth,” reported the Rockefeller Fund’s overpowering Prospect for America. “In a completely youthful population, impatience to realize rising expectations is likely to be pronounced. Extreme nationalism has often been the result.”
It was to meet these perils of population that the Rockefellers and their kindred joined the family planning movement in such force. But until they had completed a much more thoroughgoing prophylaxis of the new nationalisms, and had worked out an accommodation with Catholic opposition, they were much too sophisticated to preach birth control straight out. That would have sounded far too reminiscent of the older colonialisms and, indirectly, too much like a condemnation of the new pattern of “development.”
Consequently, until the spurt of technical assistance in the ’60s, the Population Council preached and, within the ideological confines of development thinking, practiced “the scientific study of population problems.” They provided fellowships to Americans and, as part of the broader building of native elites, to deserving foreign students. This, they hoped, would build up a cadre of “local personnel,” well-studied in population problems, “trained in objective scientific methods and able to interpret the results to their own people.” The Council also undertook population studies in the colonies, funded both demographic and medical studies at U. S. universities, worked with international agencies, and maintained its own biomedical lab at Rockefeller Institute. The foundations supplemented this approach, directly funding roughly a dozen major university think-tanks devoted to population studies. These grants no more bought scholars and scholarship than native elites. It was more efficient to rent them. Like Defense Department dollars or direct corporation gifts, the smart population money posed the right (as opposed to the left) questions, paid off for right answers, and provided parameters for scholars interested in “realistic” policy alternatives.
Study, of course, was an apprenticeship for action. By 1957, an “Ad Hoc Committee” of population strategists from the Council the Rockefeller Fund, Laurance Rockefeller ‘s Conservation Foundation and Planned Parenthood mapped out a full population control program. Published by Population Council President Frederick Osborn as Population: An International Dilemma , the committee’s report insisted that population growth, in the rich nations as well as the poor, would become a decisive threat to political stability. To preempt such instability, the population planners planned first to win over the educated classes, many of whom themselves felt the threat of population. But, wary of widespread personal sensitivities and nationalist sentiments, they would never push birth control as an end in itself. Instead they would have it grow out of the logical needs of family planning, and leave the task of gaining public acceptance to the native elite, many of whom they had trained.
An even more important antidote to nationalist reaction was the population planners’ admission that population was also a problem here in the U. S. “Excessive fertility by families with meager resources must be recognized as one of the potent forces in the perpetuation of slums, ill-health, inadequate education, and even delinquency,” the Ad Hoc Committee noted. They were satisfied, however, with the overall “balance of population and resources” in this country and sought only to use tax, welfare and education policy “to equalize births between people at different socio-economic levels” and to “discourage births among the socially handicapped.”
GETTING THE GOVERNMENT IN.
For all their domestic concern, however, population planners were primarily absorbed in “the international dilemma” and the problems of “economic development.” Like Walt Rostow , Max Millikan and the authors of the Rockefellers’ Prospect for America, they emphasized top-down national planning, Western-influenced elites, foreign aid penetration, and the use of economic growth, rather than distribution and welfare, to measure development. As a result, their plan for population bore a scary resemblance to the first Vietnamization which was then recasting the educational system, banking and currency, public works, agriculture, the police, and welfare programs of Vietnam into an American mold.
The population planners’ counter to insurgency then entered “official” development thinking in 1959, in the Report of President Eisenhower’s Committee to Study the Military Assistance Program. Headed by General William H. Draper II (perhaps best remembered as the American government official who most helped Nazi and Zaibatsu industrialists re-concentrate their power after World War II), the committee urged that development aid be extended to local maternal and child welfare programs, to the formulation of national population plans, and to additional research on population control.
Ike, a bit old-fashioned about such intimate intervention, flatly refused. He just could not “imagine anything more emphatically a subject that is not a proper political or government activity or function or responsibility … This government … will not … as long as I am here, have a positive policy doctrine in its program that has to do with this problem of birth control. That’s not our business.”
Business disagreed, the Draper Report became the rallying cry of big business’ population movement, and General Draper, an investment banker by trade, headed up both Planned Parenthood’s million dollar-a-year World Population Emergency Campaign and even bigger Victor Fund Drive.
The foundations also expanded their own programs. But the Rockefellers, Fords, Draper, and others seemingly born into the population movement hadn’t gotten rich by picking up such large tabs; not if they could help it. Despite Ike’s sense of propriety, they had continued to press for government sponsorship of birth control – and not without piecemeal gains, even in the Eisenhower government.
When Kennedy became President he agreed to a government role in research, promising to pass requests for birth control information and technical assistance to the foundations, and permitting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Richard Gardner to make an offer of U. S. family planning aid to the UN.
But none of this satisfied the population people, who, beginning in 1963, made a big public push for major government programs in both domestic and overseas agencies. In May of that year, the blue-ribbon American Assembly, with the help of the Population Council, brought “The Population Dilemma” to a convocation of leaders from all walks of American life. The National Academy of Sciences, assisted professionally and financially by the Council, issued a scary report on The Growth of World Population . Draper, Moore, and Harper & Row’s Cass Canfield then set up the Population Crisis Committee, “the political action arm of the population control movement,” to publish ads, lobby government officials and promote public support for government aid to family planning.
Sometimes the population people defended their proposals on humanitarian grounds; at other times they were more candid: “If the World Bank expects to get its loans repaid by India,” explained Draper, “if the U. S., much of whose aid is in the form of loans, expects to have them repaid … the population problem … must be solved.” Bolstered by Fulbright, Gruening and other long-term congressional advocates of “economic development,” and by a public reversal of position by former President Eisenhower, the campaign pushed the Kennedy, then the Johnson government closer to open birth control programs.
But fear of domestic controversy, especially in the Catholic community, and a lack of positive foreign response held the movement in check until the White House Conference on International Cooperation, keynoted by John D. Rockefeller III, in November 1965. The Conference Committee on Population – chaired by Gardner and including Black, Canfield, Draper and John D. – then urged that the government greatly expand its birth control assistance to foreign countries. Conference committees on Food and Agriculture and Technical Cooperation and Investment concurred, urging a multilateral approach.
Much impressed by this show of “public support,” the very next session of Congress passed Johnson’s “New Look” in foreign policy, which made birth control part of foreign assistance and permitted the President to judge a nation’s “self-help” in population planning as a criterion for giving Food for Freedom aid. (Separate legislation gave the Department of Health, Education and Welfare a birth control program for domestic consumption.) The “New Look,” which combined population control with agricultural development, international education, encouragement of private overseas investment, and multilateral institution-building, was, of course, the response of the mid-’50′s to nationalism. It was also a foretaste of what Paul Ehrlich’s “tough foreign policy positions” would easily become.
THE GREEN REVOLUTION.
The new look in intervention got a good test in the Indian famine of ’65 and ’66 – until Biafra the best-advertised famine in recent times, and a major boost for the population control campaign. Ever since the victory of the Chinese Revolution, India has been a bastion of the “free [enterprise] world.” But Western businessmen long fretted over her “neutralism” and “socialism” and her restrictions on foreign participation in key areas of the economy.
In 1958, India faced a devastating foreign exchange crisis. In response, the World Bank and the “Aid India Club” promised one billion dollars a year in aid, and international investors found themselves with golden opportunities. The Ford Foundation quickly stepped in with a “food crisis” team of experts, which pushed India’s planners into increased agricultural spending, ultimately at the expense of planned investments in housing and other social services. Several rounds of business conferences on India together with official and semi-official visits followed until, in 1964, Undersecretary of Commerce Franklin Delano Roosevelt , Jr. led a top-flight delegation of American business executives to New Delhi with the explicit objective of “persuading the government to adopt policies more attractive to potential investors.”
Hunger warriors from agribusiness were particularly hot for expansion. Poor harvest in prior years had driven food prices up, and with them, the demand for fertilizer and pesticides. Consequently, the Rockefeller’s Jersey Standard wanted price and distribution restrictions lifted on their Bombay fertilizer plant. A Bank of America syndicate, together with India’s Birla group, needed government support for what would become “the largest urea and compound fertilizer plant in this part of the world.” Petroleum producers, foreseeing an otherwise useless excess of naphtha, wanted permission to set up fertilizer plants which could utilize the petroleum by-product. The Ford and Rockefeller foundations wanted to expand use of their new high yield seeds deliberately bred for large fertilizer and pesticide inputs, and get on with the commercialization of agriculture.
But Western pressure was of little avail until the failure of the summer monsoons in 1965. Then, in the words of the World Bank’s Pearson Report, “Instead of signing annual or multi-year [food] sales agreements, as with other countries and with India itself, in earlier years, the United States doled out food aid a few months at a time as policy conditions were agreed upon.”
India, faced with a short leash on food supplies, acceded to the foreign pressures. She pared down government control, liberalized her import restriction and devalued the rupee. Her government gave the chemical and oil men permission to build new fertilizer plants, to fix their own prices, to handle their own distribution outside the normal channels of the rural cooperatives, and to maintain a greater share of management control than permitted under Indian law. Most important, officials agreed to give greater emphasis to agriculture and to maintain high food prices as an incentive to growers. “Call them ‘strings’, call them `conditions,’ or whatever one likes,” boasted the New York Times, “India has little choice now but to agree to many of the terms that the United States, through the World Bank, is putting on its aid. For India simply has nowhere else to turn.”
With the ground so carefully prepared, the miracle seeds grew beautifully. Once-barren land flowered. Indian farmers harvested 95 million tons of grain in 1967-68, bettering the best of previous yields by five per cent. The following year they did almost as well, and growers laid plans for 100 million metric tons in 1969-70. Ecstatic Indian government officials announced that India would be self-sufficient in food production by 1971. “The Green Revolution,” exclaimed David Rockefeller to the International Industrial Conference, “may ultimately have a cumulative effect in Asia, Africa, and Latin America such as the introduction of the steam engine had in the industrial revolution.”
REVOLUTION OF A DIFFERENT COLOR.
The pressure, bantered about everywhere from the Canarsie Shopping News to Business Week, had been anything but subtle. Profits would be high. Yet even liberals like John Kenneth Galbraith and Chester Bowles , both former ambassadors to New Delhi, lavishly praised the whole enterprise. People have to eat.
They have to, but even with paternalistic green revolutions they still don’t always get to. “Modern” agriculture in America and the West, dependent upon high inputs of fertilizer and pesticides, is an ecological disaster. We are only now discovering what DDT and many fertilizers do to our food, water, soil, mother’s milk and farm workers. India’s prospects are even more bleak. Chemically resistant miracle grains will soon produce miracle pests, which could easily wipe out whole areas. Early high yields depended heavily on unusually good weather – which is not dependable, and on irrigation – which is reportedly salting the soil. These problems have led many experts to question how long the revolution will remain green. But most of the experts still come down on the side of more “modern” agriculture, without even exploring possibly safer alternatives like the high-yield, labor-intensive and biologically-integrated “gardening” of the best traditional Asian agriculture.
But the real disaster is more immediate. The same high food prices which gave incentive to growers also put sufficient food out of the reach of those who need it most. Commercial agriculture, by definition, produces for profit, not people. At the same time, the new seeds required irrigation and pesticides, and heavy inputs of fertilizer, the costs of which soared with the removal of government price ceilings. “So far,” reports Clifton Wharton , Jr., writing in Foreign Affairs, “spectacular results have been achieved primarily among the relatively large commercial farmers.” Those who haven’t the capital, or can’t get the credit from village moneylenders or meager government programs, are pushed off their land and into an agricultural proletariat or worse, while the new Kulaks, the peasant capitalists, re-invest their profits in modern labor-saving machinery.
The inevitable result of this trend is class and regional conflict. Wharton reports a clash in the prize Tanjore district of Madras in which 43 persons died in a struggle between landlords and the landless, “who felt they were not receiving their proper share of the increased prosperity brought by the Green Revolution.” Two Swedish journalists, Lasse and Lisa Berg, reporting in Stockholm’s Sondagsbilagan, provide pictures of “excess” Indian peasants burned in kerosene by a landlord. One hates to speculate on how a companion population program would work, but it is all too easy to believe reports from India of forced sterilization.
But there is a positive side. As in the Philippines, where peasants displaced by the commercialization of agriculture are strengthening the Huk resistance, the Green Revolution in India is producing a Red Revolution. For the first time since Independence, militant revolutionary movements have led Indian peasants into rebellions in different parts of the country, and in certain areas, the Bergs report, the poorest people in the countryside are organizing themselves across the boundaries of caste.
THE NEW INTERNATIONALISM.
Despite all a Rockefeller might do, the New Look in empire even met obstacles at home. From 1966 on, displeasure with the unwinnable war in Vietnam escalated along with the war-caused inflation, and Congress, though it had authorized the new programs, was increasingly unwilling to fund any new foreign entanglements. In the spring of 1967, for example, Senator Fulbright , impressed with what the White House Conference’s Committee on Population had proposed, asked Congress to support voluntary family planning abroad with an appropriation of $50 million a year for three years. His less liberal colleagues approved $35 million for one year. Congress has treated the domestic birth control issue with the same lack of enthusiasm, despite the growth of third world nationalism within the U. S. Members of Congress are just too provincial to understand the needs of empire.
In an attempt to create a congressional climate more favorable to population control, the empire builders decided to drum up some public pressure for their cause. Consequently, a new avalanche of full-page spreads warned war-weary newspaper readers that “The Population Bomb Threatens the Peace of the World”; that “Hungry Nations Imperil the Peace of the World”; that “Whatever your cause, it’s a lost cause unless we control population.” The ads, sponsored by Hugh Moore ‘s Campaign to Check the Population Explosion and signed by the usual crew of population controllers, urged greatly expanded appropriations and a crash program for population stabilization. A new Presidential Committee on Population and Family Planning, headed by HEW Secretary Wilbur Cohen and, of course, John D. III, persuaded Nixon to promise greatly-expanded federal programs and a commission on domestic population problems. The Ford Foundation, initiating its first grants for birth control assistance in the U. S. in 1966, provided a barrage of money and reports. The American Assembly, with the help of the Kellog Foundation and now-Secretary of Agriculture Clifford Hardin, sponsored a national conference on Overcoming World Hunger which, despite its optimism about the green revolution, continued to push for population control. Hugh Moore pushed Ehrlich’s book and his own ads. Draper urged doubling the 1970 AID appropriation for birth control to $100,000 and was warmly applauded by James Riddleberger , his successor as head of the Population Crisis Committee. Environmentalists, along with their enemies, “the industrial polluters,” found the chief cause of every problem from slums to suburbs, pollution to protest, in the world’s expanding numbers.
More than ever, the population power structure pushed for a world population policy. From the early ’50s, the population people realized thee sensitivities – religious, ideological, military, political and personal – raised by the offer of birth control assistance, and always advocated international programs. Then, when domestic reaction to intervention in Vietnam soured the overall population control effort, they quickly joined in the generalized elitist move to transfer the entire economic development program to international agencies, where they and their third world friends could directly control the programs without interference from congressional “hicks.”
The UN should take the leadership in responding to world population growth. So urged a special United Nations Association panel headed by John D., financed by Ford, and including Richard Gardner, former World Bank president George Woods , former AID administrator and now Ford Director of International Operations David E. Bell , and AID director John A. Hannah . The committee urged the creation of a UN Commissioner of Population with broad powers to coordinate “radically upgraded” population activities. The Commissioner would work under the United Nations Development Program, whose director, Paul Hoffman , is a former president of the Ford Foundation, administrator of the Marshall Plan, and aide to General Draper in the reconquest of Japan by big business. Under Hoffman’s guidance, the second UN Decade of Development is already preparing to concentrate on agricultural development, education, and population control.
The American population elite is also trying to beef up the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which brings together the old Marshall Plan nations with Japan, Australia, Canada and the United States. Since the mid-’60s, DAC has given greater efforts to coordinating the agricultural and population control aid of the members. James Riddleberger, Draper’s replacement on the Population Crisis Committee, was the first chairman of DAC, while the present chairman, former State Department official Edwin Martin , served as a staff member of the original Draper Committee.
Most important in the new internationalism is the World Bank. Headed by Robert McNamara , veteran of population control efforts in Vietnam, the Bank is now developing the management capacity to become the key institution in administering the empire. “Just as McNamara concentrated on the cataclysmal, the nuclear threat, while at the Department of Defense,” gushed a New York Times feature, “so at the World Bank he has chosen to make the population explosion, another cataclysmal problem, his central, long-range preoccupation. For if populations are allowed to double every 20 years, as they do in low-income countries, it will wipe out the effect of development and lead to chaos.” Aided by former AID administrator William S. Gaud , now executive vice-president of the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation, and former Alliance for Progress chief Covey T. Oliver , now U. S. delegate to the World Bank, McNamara is currently preparing for the day when the great statesmen meet to discuss the control of population.
With support in the White House and agreement among their friends (the trustworthy American managers in the international agencies), everything seems to favor the new interventionism of the big business internationalists. Everything, that is, except a new-found popular preference for non-intervention, or even isolation. But if overpopulation per se becomes the new scapegoat for the world’s ills, the current hesitations about intervention will fall away. Soon everyone, from the revolting taxpayer who wants to sterilize the Panther-ridden ghettos to the foreign aid addict, will line up behind the World Bank and the UN and join the great international crusade to control the world’s population. Let empire save the earth.
Simply fighting this war on people with a people’s war will not eliminate the need for each nation to determine how best to balance resources and population. But where there is greater economic security, political participation, elimination of gross class division, liberation of women, and respected leadership, humane and successful population programs are at least possible. Without these conditions, genocide is nicely masked by the welfare imperialism of the West. In the hands of the self-seeking, humanitarianism is the most terrifying ism of all.
From the 1970 biographical note : Steve Weissman is a member of the Pacific Studies Center in Palo Alto, California. The Center is a research collective specializing in the social, political and economic dimensions of American capitalism. Projects range from studies and publications on U. S. involvement in the Third World, multinational corporations, labor problems, high finance and environmental destruction, to films on ecology and inflation.
Food and Depopulation: Rockefeller Family.
The purpose of this article is to give a brief outline of how the elites, and the Rockefellers in particular, are using food as a weapon.
Since the Rockefeller family came to power (especially after gaining a monopoly with Standard Oil) they have manipulated our government into ruining our financial system by way of the Federal Reserve, energy through oil dependency and food with GMOs (Genetically Engineered Organisms). The intention is to rob us blind and kill us. It’s time to wake up.
The official name of this program is Agenda 21 Sustainable Development.
It the overarching blueprint for depopulation and total control over America and the rest of the world. There is no question that Americans are targeted for depopulation: GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) food has saturated American farmlands. GMOs are dangerous and the proliferation of corn crops (used as sweetener, animal feed, processed food, etc) in America is shortening our life spans.(1) Our water is polluted, containing over 60,000 chemicals, most of which have never been tested for safety.(2) Our air is toxic, and the US is one of the most targeted areas for chemtrails.(3) This is just the tip of the iceberg, the things we know about. The focus of this article is revealing the link between the Rockefellers and their intended use of food as a weapon, which is more powerful than military domination and energy control.
While Agenda 21 was introduced in 1992, the elite collectivists, lead by the Rockefellers, have been pushing population control on America and the world for generations. In 1992, this depopulation and control policy was modernized and given a name: Agenda 21, or the Agenda for the 21st century. The premise for depopulation and control is to preserve the environment. One would have to be an idiot to disregard environmental concerns, however, the solutions that Agenda 21 offers fail to address the real issues. The primary tools that Agenda 21 Sustainable Development uses are global warming lies, water shortages (like the man made drought in California, which also causes food shortages) and the Endangered Species Act (designed to take away private property, which is the base of wealth creation and freedom).(4)
Food control goes hand in hand with population control. The eugenics (improvement of humans through selective breeding, often using brutal methods like genocide and forced sterilization) program of the Third Reich in Nazi Germany was revealed after WWII. Obviously, people did not have a high opinion of eugenics, so, according to William Engdahl, author of “Seeds of Destruction”, the Rockefeller strategists shifted their profile to champion the causes of the environment, resource scarcity and overpopulation.(5) The policy of population control remained, despite the illusion of caring concern - which is simply marketing; the word eugenics has been renamed as “human genetics”. This scheme for improving their image worked for them before, using “philanthropy” and tax-free foundations, when the Rockefellers became very unpopular following the Ludlow Massacre.
The Ludlow Massacre took place at a Rockefeller owned coal mine in Colorado. The mines were notoriously unsafe, which caused many deaths and the workers were paid in scrip (currency substitute that is often credit), to be spent at the Rockefeller company stores. When the workers went on strike, they were evicted from their homes and lived with their families in tent cities. Then they were provoked through murder, machine gun spray, harassment, etc, in order to goad the workers into violence.(6) This was used as a pretext to get the National Guard involved; the state militia opened fire on the tent cities, resulting in up to 53 deaths, 13 of whom were women and children. So, the Rockefellers created a propaganda campaign to polish their tarnished image through tax exempt foundations. These foundations are hardly philanthropic; they are used to fund the destruction of America (please read this excellent interview transcript by G. Edward Griffin to discover the true nature of tax exempt foundations).(7)
Why do you think Senator Jay Rockefeller is pushing so hard to censor the Internet?(8)
Today , the Rockefellers use coercive population control tactics and food as a weapon through a front organization, CGIAR (Consultative Group on Agricultural Resources) as the Rockefellers are trying to distance themselves from public - just like the Rothschild clan has done. Engdahl reports that CGIAR operates under the umbrella of the UN World Bank, and its primary focus is the spread of GMO crops. CGIAR was created by the Rockefellers and the Ford Foundation, along with the UN World Bank in 1971 with $350 million dollars a year in funding.
The Rockefeller’s “Green Revolution”, which was the implementation of new farming methods in developing countries, like Mexico, India and Asia, increased crop yields, but ended in disaster; the program lasted from the 1940’s - 1970’s.(9) The “Green Revolution”, funded by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations and the US government, was a farming experiment with these results:
• Hybrid rice was planted that is often sterile in subsequent generations.
• Intensive water usage, which depleted water sources.
• Use of pesticides and herbicides, which causes cancer but made the manufacturers wealthy.
• Use of synthetic (petroleum based) fertilizers that damaged the environment, but created untold wealth for the Rockefeller owned Standard Oil.
• Created a monoculture (only a single crop is grown), which means that the food supply can be destroyed in one season.
Bill Gates wants to have a new “Gene Revolution” in Africa. Bill Gates has teamed with the Rockefellers, Monsanto and the government of Norway in the Doomsday Seed Vault, in which organic seed is stored for some vague anticipated world catastrophe.(10)
The Rockefeller Brothers Fund created the ISAAA (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications) and the Rockefeller Foundation is a major donor. The ISAAA is involved in promoting proprietary GMO seeds to developing countries. Its sponsors include Monsanto (USA), Dow AgroSciences (USA), Cargill (USA), Bayer CropScience (Germany), and a mysterious “Anonymous Donor “(USA), and US-AID of the State Department, per William Engdahl.
It is worth mentioning that Robert Deitch’s book, “Hemp: American History Revisited” explains that the Great Depression was not caused by the Wall Street stock market crash of ‘29, but by Prohibition (the 18th Amendment that prohibited alcohol from 1920 until it was repealed in 1933). Other businesses, besides the production of alcoholic beverages, that used alcohol were ruined. Deitch claims that the big oil interests, like Rockefeller (Standard Oil) and Mellon (Gulf Oil) demonized alcohol, not on propagandized moral grounds, but to eliminate competition. The automobile industry was in its infancy and they wanted to corner the market on energy, so they devised a plan to knock out the competition of alcohol powered vehicles.
Later, in 1937, after relentless lobbying, they did the same thing with hemp, and through deception and demonization of marijuana, hemp was outlawed. Hemp contains only miniscule trace amounts of THC (the active agent in marijuana), yet it is considered a ‘controlled substance’.
Hemp is a low maintenance plant that needs no pesticides or herbicides, and can produce oil, paper products, biodegradable plastics, medicine and textiles (it is also a super nutritious food). Because the Robber Barons (Rockefeller and Mellon - oil, DuPont - chemicals and Hearst - paper) were threatened, they joined together to outlaw hemp.
Hemp was later needed during WWII, so its cultivation was allowed in the US. Hemp was a threat to the Rockefellers not only because it produces oil, but also because Cannibis has uses as a medicine, thereby threatening their pharmaceutical drug monopoly. Nelson Rockefeller, as governor of New York, in 1973, established marijuana as a Schedule I narcotic drug, through the “Rockefeller Drug Laws” which had harsh penalties for the possession and sale of drugs (including marijuana) that could result in a sentence of 15 years to life. As other States followed suit, this became the cornerstone of America’s abysmal ‘War on Drugs’.(11)
California was the first State to defy the federal government in de-criminalizing marijuana for medical use, through the 10th Amendment (States’ rights). Fourteen other States have followed suit. California will be vote on marijuana legalization in November; this may pass because the government wants to tax it. Ironically, in 2006, a bill to allow hemp farming passed both houses of the California legislature, but collectivist Arnold Schwarzenegger, in another act of cowardice, vetoed the bill because he said that marijuana and hemp are indistinguishable under federal law. Hemp could go a long way toward saving California’s bankrupt economy.
Fifteen other States have introduced or enacted legislation to grow hemp, but they fear the federal Drug Enforcement Agency.(12)
Interestingly, California will have an initiative on the ballot in November to legalize marijuana. This means that if it passes, anyone can smoke marijuana for any reason, as opposed to limiting it to medical marijuana use. This is important for 2 reasons; first, it would open the door for hemp cultivation for food, oil, natural plastics, paper, etc. The second reason this is important is because it would nullify the federal drug law, thus enforcing the Tenth Amendment for state sovereignty.
Thanks to F. William Engdahl, author of “Seeds of Destruction” for all of his fine research and articles.
For more information, pleas visit MorphCity.
September 7, 2008.
Members of We Are Change Colorado caught up with globalist kingpin Henry Kissinger and CFR president Richard N. Haass during the RNC proceedings in Minnesota, who were both dismissive towards hard questions about policies related to terrorism and depopulation measures.
Dr. Kissinger grinned at mention of the New World Order before dismissing any knowledge of National Security Memo #200 , which calls for the use of “food as a weapon” and otherwise advocates depopulation schemes that include extreme measures to be used against the ‘lesser developed countries’ in the third world, whose population growth supposedly threatens the National Security interests of the United States.
Kissinger penned the memo in 1974 while serving in the Ford Administration. Kissinger told We Are Change cameras that he believed terrorism and 3rd population explosion were directly connected.
Activist Joby Weeks also asked the former National Security Adviser if he believed AIDS could be a manufactured threat tied to depopulation schemes, to which Kissinger said he ‘had no idea’ before absurdly claiming he had “never heard of” NSSM 200. When he was reminded that he wrote the memo, he blurted out “Oh, come on!,” possibly thinking that his infamous memo was being tied to the notion of AIDS being a manufactured bio-weapon.
Kissinger, who was closed followed by police security and who was also mobbed by star-struck sycophants who have either over-looked or never understood his inherent evil (exercised repeatedly over the decades in brutal foreign policy, from the third world to the Vietnam & Laos and now in Iraq), left the scene quickly after questions were put to him.
Richard Haass, who was presiding over a Council on Foreign Relations discussion panel, told We Are Change cameras that there was no need of oversight in regards to the CFR. “We have no power; if people want to listen to us, that’s great, if not, that’s fine.”
This is a gross understatement of a think tank so powerful that it has staffed virtually every administration’s National Security Council and many other cabinet positions, including Vice President, Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of State, since the early 1950s. While its policy recommendations are technically separate altogether from government, its influence is more than dominant in government’s thinking.
Haass and the other CFR members present laughed at and brushed off concerns about one Philip Zelikow, who wrote a CFR white paper in Foreign Affairs in December 1998 about the potential for ‘catastrophic terrorism’ to “divide our past and future into a before and after.
Obama Depopulation Policy Exposed.
Panelists warn of the revival of eugenics under Obama’s modern healthcare through the denial of care to millions who would be judged ‘not fit to live’, just as in Nazi Germany.
Historian Anton Chaitkin also alleges that Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel, in working with Obama, has also called for the Hippocratic oath to be ‘junked.’
Does "change" mean depopulation and culling of the useless eaters?
8-9-9 The Ehrlich name is among the most famous contributors to drug industrialization, vaccination, and genocidal depopulation. Do the research! Obama's science czar, John Holdren co-authored <zombietime/john_holdren/>Ecoscience with Paul R. and Anne Ehrlich. These two are likely kin to S. Paul Ehrlich, Jr., "Surgeon Genocide" of the U. S. who defended the CIA and obfuscated the DoD's open air testing of biological weapons on unwitting Americans during official congressional hearings on the matter in 1976. These Paul Ehrlichs are likely kin to Nobel Prize Winner, Paul Ehrlich, who coined the term "chemotherapy," and popularized medicine's "magic bullet" doctrine for disease treatment. The first Ehrlich also pioneered the field of "autoimmunity," fundamental to vaccine toxicity. As living proof of the popular application of autoimmune vaccine intoxication, study the field of autoimmune diseases. The vast majority of today's most mysterious pandemics, including all the new chronic diseases such as chronic fatigue, MS, Type 1 diabetes, Guillain Barre, rheumatoid arthritis, and many, many more, are vaccination intoxication induced. Also, the world's worst immune system nightmare is reputed to be Ebola. The Paul Ehrlich Institute in Frankfort, Germany, was "Ground Zero" for the emergence of the "Marburg virus," that is the mother of Ebola. This rabies-type rodent virus injected into simian lab monkeys caused the mutation-creation of the Marburg/Ebola strains we fear today. Marburg first broke out in 1967 by way of monkeys shipped from Africa to this world leading vaccine production facility, The Paul Ehrlich Institute. (The shippers, Litton Bionetics, as documented in <healthyworldstore/index. php? act=viewProd&productId=25>Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola--Nature, Accident or Intentional?, were the Army's sixth leading biological weapons contractor in 1969.) This "reality check" on the vaccine industry's origination of Marburg/Ebola was issued by the world's leading expert on laboratory "emerging viruses," Seymour Kalter. during a scientific symposium in 1975. Paul R. Ehrlich, and Obama's science czar Holdren's position on population levels, says that we need to take extraordinary measures for depopulation at this time. The two advanced controversial birth control methods such as mass sterilization through drugs in water supplies, and sterilization of criminals and other "social misfits," as defined by the earliest eugenicists seeking to genetically engineer a "master race."(<tetrahedron/articles/new_world_order/UN.
_Rockefeller_Genocide. html>1, <eugenics-watch/roots/chap12.html>2, <globalresearch. ca/index. php? context=va&aid=7529>3) (Few people realize that municipal water fluoridation was used by the Nazis to numb people's reasoning.) On behalf of "globalization/colonialization," Holdren and Ehrlich wrote that a planetary regime should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born, and that, "The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization. . . . & quot; The authors continued, "If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force." Now you can see how this bioterrorist depopulation agenda evolved, who is really behind it, and why avoiding vaccinations, at all costs, is the wisest choice.
NWO Plans To Depopulate The Earth.
4-13-5 "If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels" - Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh.
World population is, by all intents and purposes, completely out of control.
Plans are underway now, implemented by the New World Order Elite, to depopulate the planet's 6-7 billion people to a manageable level of between 500 million and 2 billion. There are many means and methods of depopulation that are being employed today, the 3 primary of which include; unsustainable/exploitative international development, which leads to massive hunger, starvation and famine worldwide (at least 40 million deaths annually), the fomentation of war, hatred and military procurements throughout the nations leading to millions of deaths worldwide, and finially, the creation and spread of infectious diseases leading to global pandemic, plague and pestilence on an unprecedented scale. Other methods used include; the build-up and use of nuclear, chemical and biological agents, weapons and warfare, the poisoning and contamination of the planet's food and water supplies, the introduction and use of deadly pharmacuetical drugs in society, weather modification and the triggering of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis through electromagnetic psychotronic weapons both on Earth and in space, the promotion of homosexuality to limit population growth and spread the deadly AIDS virus, forced sterilization in countries such as China, forced vaccinations, abortion, euthanasia etc.
Death, and the management of who lives and who dies, has become the central organizing principle of the 21st century.
The previous century has been, by far, the bloodiest in human history. Hunger, famine and disease took billions of innocent lives. World Wars 1 and 2, along with the despotic regimes of Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Reagan, Bush and others, took hundreds of millions. The 21st century is shaping up to accelerate this dismal trend where hunger, famine and disease are reaping record levels of death (the equivalent of 7 jewish holocaust annually). Contemporary wars continue to rage on and proliferate. In the nation of Iraq, the killing fields have taken the lives of more than 2 million men, women and children (mostly children) this past decade from foreign and economic intervention. Vastly unreported is the genocide occuring in the Congo, where more than 4 million people have been slaughtered, mutilated and massacred recently with only scant world attention given. Add to this the unrestrained and very profitable build-up of weapons of mass destruction - nuclear, chemical and biological - in the world, particularily in the volatile Middle East region, with the expressed desire and willingness to actually use them, and you have an Apocalypse of World War 3 becoming a virtual inevitability. The death toll of THIS war is sure to surpass all previous in scale and in magnitude, as has been planned.
The international campaign to eliminate the "useless eaters" (according to the Club of Rome) on behalf of the planet's priviledged ruling elite, is surely to take a more voracious toll as global population levels continue to rise. To implement their "final solution" to depopulate 4-5 billion people from the Earth, the world's elite will undoubtedly harness the newly emerging biotech and nanotechnology industries to create a super 'bioweapon' virus creating a global 'kill-off' pandemic through which only they will have the cure.
Steve Jones P. O. Box 2902 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504 USA.
SOURCES: 1. Radio Liberty Dr Stanley Monteith P. O. Box 13, Santa Cruz, California 95063 USA Website: radioliberty.
2. Dr Len Horowitz 206 N. 4th Ave, Suite 147 Sandpoint, Idaho 83864 USA Website: tetrahedron.
***Books - Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola, Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism and Toxic Warfare AND Star Wars Weapons and End Times Warfare.
3. Population Connection 1400 16th St, NW, Suite 320 Washington, DC 20036 USA Website: populationconnection.
4. Q-Files/Steve Quayle 315 Edelweiss Dr Bozeman, Montana 59718 USA Website: stevequalye ***Books - Genetic Armageddon AND Breath No Evil.
6. The Club of Rome Rissener Landstr. 193 Hamburg, Germany, European Union Website: clubofrome.
10. ***Books - Population Bomb and Population Explosion by Paul and Anne Ehrlich Center for Conservation Biology Department of Biological Sciences Stanford University Stanford, California 94305 USA Book Search: amazon.
12. The Power Hour P. O. Box 85, Versailles, Missouri 65084 USA Website: thepowerhour.
13. EIR - Executive Intelligence Review P. O. Box 17390, Washington, DC 20041 USA Website: larouchepub.
14. United Nations Population Fund 220 E. 42nd St, New York, New York 10017 USA Website: unfpa.
15. World Hunger/Global Starvation/Planetary Famine Website: geocities/blackbutte777/hunger. html 16. Prophets Links Website: geocities/illiyin7/master. html.
Catherine Austin Fitts: Purpose of Flu Vaccine is Depopulation.
I believe one of the goals of the swine flu vaccine is depopulation. Perhaps it is the goal of a swine flu epidemic as well, whether bio-warfare or hype around a flu season.
These days, I keep remembering my sense of urgency leaving the Bush Administration in 1991. We had to do something to turn around the economy and gather real assets behind retirement plans and the social safety net. If not, Americans could find themselves deeply out on a limb. I felt my family and friends were in danger. They did not share my concern. They had a deep faith in the system.
As my efforts to find ways of reengineering government investment in communities failed to win political support, Washington and Wall Street moved forward with a debt bubble and globalization that was horrifying in its implications for humanity.
Overwhelmed by what was happening, I estimated the end result. My simple calculations guessed that we were going to achieve economic sustainability on Earth by depopulating down to a population of approximately 500 million people from our then current global population of 6 billion. I was a portfolio strategist used to looking at numbers from a very high level. Those around me could not fathom how all the different threads I was integrating could lead to such a conclusion. To me, we had to have radical change in how we governed resources or depopulate. It was a mathematical result.
A year later, in 1999, a very capable investment and portfolio strategist asked me if he could come have a private lunch with me in Washington. We sat in a posh restaurant across from the Capitol. He said quietly that he had calculated out where the derivatives and debt bubble combined with globalization were going. The only logical conclusion he could reach was that significant depopulation was going to occur. He said his estimates led to an approximate population of 500 million. I said very quietly, “that’s my estimate too.” I will never forget the look of sadness that crossed his face. I was amazed to find someone else who understood.
It turns out that we were not alone. Sir James Goldsmith had warned of the consequences of GATT in 1994. He described the process under way, involving the loss of land and livelihood for 3 billion people, “…This is the establishment against the rest of society.” Voices were rising around the planet as hardships exploded from global economic warfare and industrialization of agriculture.
As trillions of dollars were shifted out of America by legal and illegal means to reinvest in Asia and emerging markets and to build a global military empire, we left a sovereign nation economic model behind. Finally, the expense and corruption of empire resulted in bailouts of $12-14 trillion, delivering a new financial war chest to the people leading the financial engineering. Now we have exploding unemployment, an exploding federal deficit, an Inspector General for the TARP bailout program predicting that the ultimate bailout cost could rise to $23.7 trillion and a Congressional Budget Director who is concluding that we can no longer afford the social safety net.
That is, unless you change the actuarial assumptions in the budget – like life expectancy. Lowering immune systems and increasing toxicity levels combined with poor food, water and terrorizing stress will help do the trick. Review the history of vaccines rushed into production without proper testing and peer review - it is clear about the potential side effects. In addition, a plague can so frighten and help control people that they will accept the end of their current benefits (and the resulting implications to life expectancy) without objection. And a plague with proper planning can be highly profitable. Whatever the truth of what swine flu and related vaccines are, it can be used as a way to keep control in a situation that is quickly shifting out of control.
In short, an epidemic can be used to offset the inflation of capital with increasing deflation of the value and income of labor and continual demand destruction. It is a great deal of time and money spent on something that will not help build a real economy. The disinformation and control opportunities are profound. They keep the slow burn going. It is the next, meaner face of “the establishment against the rest of society.”
That’s what I believe. I am not an expert. I have no case worth presenting in a court of law. There are hundreds of hours of research on the swine flu and related vaccines that I have not done and I am not going to do. It is just what I believe, listening to the people I respect, and in no small part because if you map out all the financial ecosystems around the issue and people and incentives involved, it seems to me to be the logical conclusion.
Now, if this sounds ludicrous to you, it may be because you do not appreciate how dark the culture has become that is now in charge. Do you have any idea how impossibly frustrating it is to manage a highly centralized system in which the vast majority of people lack any responsibility to ensure that the whole thing works? Everyone wants their free lunch and there are no real markets or democracy to force accountability or a shared intelligence. Force works. Force has increasingly become the way to achieve most everything. Using force is a lot easier that living with rising risk and the costs of subsidizing an aging population.
So the question for you and me is “what do we do?” Are we going to take a vaccine? Are we going to allow our children to be vaccinated? Will we have a choice? How can we organize to make sure that we do? Is self-quarantine a practical option? How would we prepare for it?
What you believe is your responsibility. The time has come to build time into Summer schedules to research options, discuss them with those you trust and make informed decisions about what you believe and what actions you intend to take under a variety of scenarios.
I don’t have the answers yet. Somehow, I believe we can find them together. And while we do, let’s remember to pray for the love of humanity to be rekindled and nourished in each and every heart.
Food Shortages Or Globalist Depopulation Agenda?
In an article posted on the Hindustan Times website, N. Chandra Mohan cites Mark Thirwell, Director of the International Economy Program at the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney, Australia. “This is not the first time in modern economic history that the Malthusian spectre of global food shortages has stalked the world economy," writes Thirwell. “Surges in food prices in the 1970s and then again in the mid-1990s both prompted warnings that agricultural capacity was failing to keep pace with a growing world population. Each time the prices jumped, it proved to be temporary as supply responded.” Mr. Mohan believes, this time around, there will be no supply ready to respond. He links this dire situation to "policy neglect of agriculture" and "climate and environmental degradation."
In addition to "climate change," Mohan blames the failures of capitalism — described as "supply-side responses" to market forces — and the "absence of technological breakthroughs in terms of higher yields from new varieties of paddy, wheat and maize." In other words, the current food shortages around the world are the result of corporate ineptitude and due to the vagaries of weather, supposedly exacerbated by man-made "climate change."
Is it possible the current food crisis is part of an intentional plan, indeed Malthusian, as Thirwell writes? Is it possible supposedly man-made "climate change" and the "food crisis" are components of a sinister depopulation agenda designed to cull the herd down to a manageable level, as proclaimed on the mysterious Georgia Guidestones? ("Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.")
In order to understand how these twin menaces — increasingly hyped by the corporate media — may indeed be part of a depopulation agenda, we repost here an article by Joseph Brewda , originally published in the Executive Intelligence Review:
Kissinger’s 1974 Plan for Food Control Genocide.
On Dec. 10, 1974, the U. S. National Security Council under Henry Kissinger completed a classified 200-page study, "National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U. S. Security and Overseas Interests." The study falsely claimed that population growth in the so-called Lesser Developed Countries (LDCs) was a grave threat to U. S. national security. Adopted as official policy in November 1975 by President Gerald Ford, NSSM 200 outlined a covert plan to reduce population growth in those countries through birth control, and also, implicitly, war and famine. Brent Scowcroft, who had by then replaced Kissinger as national security adviser (the same post Scowcroft was to hold in the Bush administration), was put in charge of implementing the plan. CIA Director George Bush was ordered to assist Scowcroft, as were the secretaries of state, treasury, defense, and agriculture.
The bogus arguments that Kissinger advanced were not original. One of his major sources was the Royal Commission on Population, which King George VI had created in 1944 "to consider what measures should be taken in the national interest to influence the future trend of population." The commission found that Britain was gravely threatened by population growth in its colonies, since "a populous country has decided advantages over a sparsely-populated one for industrial production." The combined effects of increasing population and industrialization in its colonies, it warned, "might be decisive in its effects on the prestige and influence of the West," especially effecting "military strength and security."
NSSM 200 similarly concluded that the United States was threatened by population growth in the former colonial sector. It paid special attention to 13 "key countries" in which the United States had a "special political and strategic interest": India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia. It claimed that population growth in those states was especially worrisome, since it would quickly increase their relative political, economic, and military strength.
For example, Nigeria: "Already the most populous country on the continent, with an estimated 55 million people in 1970, Nigeria’s population by the end of this century is projected to number 135 million. This suggests a growing political and strategic role for Nigeria, at least in Africa." Or Brazil: "Brazil clearly dominated the continent demographically." The study warned of a "growing power status for Brazil in Latin America and on the world scene over the next 25 years."
Food as a weapon.
There were several measures that Kissinger advocated to deal with this alleged threat, most prominently, birth control and related population-reduction programs. He also warned that "population growth rates are likely to increase appreciably before they begin to decline," even if such measures were adopted.
A second measure was curtailing food supplies to targetted states, in part to force compliance with birth control policies: "There is also some established precedent for taking account of family planning performance in appraisal of assistance requirements by AID [U. S. Agency for International Development] and consultative groups. Since population growth is a major determinant of increases in food demand, allocation of scarce PL 480 resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production. In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion."
"Mandatory programs may be needed and we should be considering these possibilities now," the document continued, adding, "Would food be considered an instrument of national power? … Is the U. S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth?"
Kissinger also predicted a return of famines that could make exclusive reliance on birth control programs unnecessary. "Rapid population growth and lagging food production in developing countries, together with the sharp deterioration in the global food situation in 1972 and 1973, have raised serious concerns about the ability of the world to feed itself adequately over the next quarter of century and beyond," he reported.
The cause of that coming food deficit was not natural, however, but was a result of western financial policy: "Capital investments for irrigation and infrastucture and the organization requirements for continuous improvements in agricultural yields may be beyond the financial and administrative capacity of many LDCs. For some of the areas under heaviest population pressure, there is little or no prospect for foreign exchange earnings to cover constantly increasingly imports of food."
"It is questionable," Kissinger gloated, "whether aid donor countries will be prepared to provide the sort of massive food aid called for by the import projections on a long-term continuing basis." Consequently, "large-scale famine of a kind not experienced for several decades—a kind the world thought had been permanently banished," was foreseeable—famine, which has indeed come to pass.
This globalist "return of famines" would not be possible without the participation of multinational corporations. The elite, writes Richard Freeman for the Intelligence Review, are in the process of applying "a tourniquet to food production and export supplies, not only to poor nations, but to advanced sector nations as well." Of course, this would not be possible without the cartelization of agricultural, now known as "agribusiness." Freeman elaborates:
The Windsors’ Global Food Cartel: Instrument for Starvation.
Ten to twelve pivotal companies, assisted by another three dozen, run the world’s food supply. They are the key components of the Anglo-Dutch-Swiss food cartel, which is grouped around Britain’s House of Windsor. Led by the six leading grain companies—Cargill, Continental, Louis Dreyfus, Bunge and Born, André, and Archer Daniels Midland/Töpfer—the Windsor-led food and raw materials cartel has complete domination over world cereals and grains supplies, from wheat to corn and oats, from barley to sorghum and rye. But it also controls meat, dairy, edible oils and fats, fruits and vegetables, sugar, and all forms of spices.
Each year tens of millions die from the most elementary lack of their daily bread. This is the result of the work of the Windsor-led cartel. And, as the ongoing financial collapse wipes out bloated speculative financial paper, the oligarchy has moved into hoarding, increasing its food and raw materials holdings. It is prepared to apply a tourniquet to food production and export supplies, not only to poor nations, but to advanced sector nations as well.
The use of food as a weapon can be found at least four millennia ago in Babylon. Imperial Rome took this tack, as did Venice and various Venetian offshoots, including the Antwerp-centered, powerful Burgundian duchy, and the Dutch and British Levant companies, East India companies, and West India companies. Today, food warfare is firmly under the control of London, with the help of subordinate partners in especially Switzerland and Amsterdam. Today’s food companies were created by having had a section of this ancient set of Mesopotamian-Roman-Venetian-British food networks and infrastructure carved out for them.
The Windsor-led oligarchy has built up a single, integrated raw materials cartel, with three divisions—energy, raw materials and minerals, and increasingly scarce food supplies. Figure 1 represents the situation. At the top is the House of Windsor and Club of the Isles. Right below are two of the principal appurtenances of the House of Windsor: the World Wide Fund for Nature, headed by the Doge of London, Prince Philip, which leads the world in orchestration of ethnic conflict and terrorism, such as the British-created afghansi movement; and British intelligence’s Hollinger Corp. of Conrad Black, which is leading the assault to destroy Bill Clinton and the American Presidency.
The firms within each cartel group are listed. While they maintain the legal fiction of being different corporate organizations, in reality this is one interlocking syndicate, with a common purpose and multiple overlapping boards of directors. The Windsor-centered oligarchy owns these cartels, and they are the instruments of power of the oligarchy, accumulated over centuries, for breaking nations’ sovereignty.
The Move to Depopulate the Planet.
It is my intention to give you clips from documents, many from the United Nations that prove there is a plan to depopulate this planet. I will also provide quotes from various people and organizations that further show this agenda is afoot. I pray the guidance of the Lord God Almighty will be with me in this pursuit to warn others of this dark plot against humanity.
Everything written in this paper is easily verifiable. It may take some time and effort, but I took great pains to make this paper as accurate as I possibly could.
The depopulation agenda is based on nature worship, or Gaia worship. In Genesis, God clearly told Adam and Eve, and then Noah and his family to go forth and multiply to fill the earth. Nowhere in the Bible does God rescind that clearly spoken commandment. Therefore man is attempting to supercede the command of the Lord God in heaven: The Creator! I ask you, who knows more about the state of the earth, the created, or the Creator?
The basis for the depopulation agenda is a standard all elitist’s hold dear. This standard is called:
Create the Problem Cause a Reaction Offer a Solution.
You will see exactly how they have created the problem; caused a reaction so widespread it is really quite impressive how successful they have been; and offered a solution: A deadly solution.
I ask that you please make an attempt to distribute this paper everywhere you possibly can. The time grows short and so many are going to be caught unawares. By getting the word out, you may be able to prevent someone from needless pain and suffering.
William Benton, Assistant U. S. Secretary of State at UNESCO 1946: (UNESCO is the United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organization)
“As long as a child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness can produce only precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The schools therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes that favor jingoism (nationalism)…we shall presently recognize in nationalism the major obstacle to development of world mindedness. We are at the beginning of a long process of breaking down the walls of national sovereignty. UNESCO must be the pioneer.” (Emphasis mine throughout)
Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill (this is absolute proof that man made global warming is a fabrication)…. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
“We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”
Aldous Huxley, Brave New World 1946:
“There is, of course, no reason why the new totalitarians should resemble the old. Government by clubs and firing squads, by artificial famine, mass imprisonment and mass deportation, is not merely inhumane (nobody cares much about that nowadays); it is demonstrably inefficient and in an age of advanced technology, inefficiency is the sin against the Holy Ghost.”
Aldous Huxley, Lecture named Population Explosion 1959:
“…Let us ask ourselves what the practical alternatives are as we confront this problem of population growth. One alternative is to do nothing in particular about it and just let things go on as they are…The question is: Are we going to restore the balance in the natural way, which is a brutal and entirely anti-human way, or are we going to restore it in some intelligent, rational, and humane way…Try to increase production as much as possible and at the same time try to re-establish the balance between the birth rate by means less gruesome than those which are used by nature – by intelligent and human methods?…There are colossal difficulties in the way of implementing any large-scale policy of limitation of population; whereas death control is extremely easy under modern circumstances, birth control is extremely difficult. The reason is very simple: death control – the control, for example, of infectious diseases – can be accomplished by a handful of experts and quite a small labour force of unskilled persons and requires a very small capital expenditure.”
Barry Commoner, Making Peace with the Planet:
“There have been ‘triage’ proposals that would condemn whole nations to death through some species of global ‘benign neglect’. There have been schemes for coercing people to curtail their fertility, by physical and legal means that are ominously left unspecified. Now we are told that we must curtail rather than extend our efforts to feed the hungry peoples of the world. Where will it end?” Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, April 28, 1997, Testimony before Congressional Committee: “There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It’s real, and that’s the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that’s why this is so important.”
Jacques Cousteau UNESCO Courier 1991:
“In order to save the planet it would be necessary to kill 350,000 people per day.”
Jacques Cousteau, Population: Opposing Viewpoints:
“If we want our precarious endeavor to succeed, we must convince all human beings to participate in our adventure, and we must urgently find solutions to curb the population explosion that has a direct influence on the impoverishment of the less-favoured communities. Otherwise, generalized resentment will beget hatred, and the ugliest genocide imaginable, involving billions of people, will become unavoidable.”
“Uncontrolled population growth and poverty must not be fought from inside, from Europe, from North America, or any nation or group of nations; it must be attacked from the outside – by international agencies helped in the formidable job by competent and totally non-governmental organizations.”
Bertrand Russell, The Impact Of Science On Society 1953.
“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing… War… has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full… The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s… There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority…”
“U. S. policy toward the third world should be one of depopulation”
“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
David Rockefeller: Memoirs 2002 Founder of the CFR:
“We wield over American political and economical institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political structure, one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
David Rockefeller, Co-founder of the Trilateral Commission:
“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine & other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plans for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American Case Officer for the State Department’s Office of Population Affairs (OPA) (now the US State Dept. Office of Population Affairs, est. by Henry Kissinger in 1975): “There is a single theme behind all our work - we must reduce population levels,” said Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American case officer for the State Department’s Office of Population Affairs (OPA). “Either they [governments] do it our way, through nice clean methods or they will get the kind of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran, or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it. “The professionals,” said Ferguson, “aren’t interested in lowering population for humanitarian reasons. That sounds nice. We look at resources and environmental constraints. We look at our strategic needs, and we say that this country must lower its population - or else we will have trouble.
“So steps are taken. El Salvador is an example where our failure to lower population by simple means has created the basis for a national security crisis. The government of El Salvador failed to use our programs to lower their population. Now they get a civil war because of it…. There will be dislocation and food shortages. They still have too many people there.” (1981)
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, April 28, 1997; Testimony before Congressional Committee:
“And advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”
Sir Julian Huxley, UNESCO: its Purpose and its Philosophy:
“Political unification in some sort of world government will be required… Even though… any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” In the early 1950’s, former Communist Joseph Z. Kornfeder expressed the opinion that UNESCO was comparable to a Communist Party agitation and propaganda department. He stated that such a party apparatus ‘handles the strategy and method of getting at the public mind, young and old.’ Huxley would lard the agency with a motley collection of Communists and fellow travelers.
President Richard Nixon believed abortion was necessary as a form of eugenics to prevent interracial breeding.
Theodore Roosevelt to Charles B. Davenport, January 3, 1913, Charles B. Davenport Papers, Department of Genetics, Cold Spring Harbor, N. Y.:
“I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feebleminded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them…The emphasis should be laid on getting desirable people to breed…”
“Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind…. Any group of farmers, who permitted their best stock not to breed, and let all the increase come from the worst stock, would be treated as fit inmates for an asylum…. Some day we will realize that the prime duty, the inescapable duty of the good citizens of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type. The great problem of civilization is to secure a relative increase of the valuable as compared with the less valuable or noxious elements in the population… The problem cannot be met unless we give full consideration to the immense influence of heredity…” “I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feebleminded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them… The emphasis should be laid on getting desirable people to breed…”
“The Georgia Guidestones, a massive granite edifice planted in the Georgia countryside, contains a list of ten new commandments for Earth’s citizens. The first commandment, and the one which concerns this article, simply states; “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”
Robert Walker, former chair of PepsiCo and Proctor & Gamble on water:
Water is a gift of nature. Its delivery is not. It must be priced to insure it is used sustainably.
Ted Turner makes the radical statement that, “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal,”
Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood, funded by the Rockefellers) said in her proposed “The American Baby Code”, intended to become law:
“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
This is the woman (Margaret Sanger) whom Hillary Clinton publicly declared she looked up to, during the 2008 presidential debates.
Here is a short list of some advocates of eugenics; Alexander Graham Bell, George Bernard Shaw H. G. Wells, Sidney Webb, William Beveridge, John Maynard Keynes, Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Winston Churchill, Linus Pauling, Sidney Webb, Sir Francis Galton, Charles B. Davenport Futurist Barbara Marx Hubbard (who wanted to create a Dept. of Peace):
“Out of the full spectrum of human personality, one-fourth is electing to transcend…One-fourth is ready to so choose, given the example of one other…One-fourth is resistant to election. They are unattracted by life ever evolving. One-fourth is destructive. They are born angry with God…They are defective seeds…There have always been defective seeds. In the past they were permitted to die a ‘natural death’…we, the elders, have been patiently waiting until the very last moment before the quantum transformation, to take action to cut out this corrupted and corrupting element in the body of humanity. It is like watching a cancer grow…Now, as we approach the quantum shift from creature-human to co-creative human—the human who is an inheritor of god-like powers—the destructive one-fourth must be eliminated from the social body. We have no choice, dearly beloveds. Fortunately you, dearly beloveds, are not responsible for this act. Nós estamos. We are in charge of God’s selection process for planet Earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death. We come to bring death to those who are unable to know God…the riders of the pale horse are about to pass among you. Grim reapers, they will separate the wheat from the chaff. This is the most painful period in the history of humanity…”
Alexander Haig is quoted referring to the US State Department Office of Population Affairs, which was established by Henry Kissinger in 1975. The title has since been changed to The Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental and Scientific Affairs:
“Accordingly, the Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental and Scientific Affairs has consistently blocked industrialization policies in the Third World, denying developing nation’s access to nuclear energy technology–the policies that would enable countries to sustain a growing population. According to State Department sources, and Ferguson himself, Alexander Haig is a “firm believer” in population control.
Although the above stated quotes should be sufficient to prove that the elitists in power have definite intent to depopulate this planet to what they deem to be a sustainable level. Some will argue these are only opinions and are of no real consequence. I will now move on to providing bits of documentation showing this is a plan that has a worldwide scope of influence.
Most of these documents are at least 10 years old, some older. That however, does not take away from the seriousness of the content. Do not think them invalid due to their age. It takes time to foment plans on such a grand scale. But, if you are honest with yourself you can see glimpses of these things happening today.
I am going to cover some issues stemming from the UN Treaty on Biological Diversity (Agenda 21), which Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993 before it was sent to the U. S. Senate for ratification.
EPA Internal Working Document Ecosystem Management:
“The executive branch should direct federal agencies to evaluate national policies…. in light of international policies and obligations, and to amend national policies to achieve international objectives.”
“In other words, our federal bureaucrats are writing U. S. law, independent of Congress who has Constitutional authority to do that. They are changing regulations and creating laws out of thin air.”
“They are no longer working for the people of the United States. They are working for the international community. There are so many treaties written up that they have (effectively) bound the United States. Whereas a few of the treaties were not a problem, the abundance (100’s) of them have now taken control over all of our lives” - Michael Coffman.
UN Treaty on Biological Diversity Assessment on Desirable Culture:
“…Traditional societies have considered certain sites as sacred, where most human activities are prohibited.”
That is the heart of the Convention on Biodiversity. Locking up nearly 50% of the land area of the United States is their idea of protecting biological diversity. - Michael Coffman.
UN Treaty on Biodiversity Diversity Usage of Fertilizers Not Sustainable:
“That fertilizers have played an essential part in producing the world’s harvests is undisputed. (It) is estimated that if the use of fertilizers ceased, the world’s harvests would be cut almost in half. However, the negative side of the equation is that the nitrates from fertilizers seep into ground water aquifers and they are seriously implicated in the eutrophication of lakes, rivers and coastal ecosystems causing often drastic changes in the fauna and flora.”
“They are willing to take a course of action that will reduce the world’s food supply by half, or more, as they will likely reduce the use of pesticides knowing full well how many people this will kill”. - Michael Coffman.
UN Biodiversity Assessment on Sustainable Human Population; US Senate September 9, 1994:
“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be one billion people. This must be implemented within 30-50 years, 2/3’s of the population must be cut.”
“The UN says property rights are not absolute and unchanging, but are there for the convenience of whatever government wants to do.” – Michael Coffman.
“Nobody owns biodiversity, so everything we do impinges on biodiversity. Property rights become meaningless. At the Rio De Janeiro Summit it was decided that the Global Environmental Facility would be the depository of all property rights.” – Michael Coffman.
UN Biodiversity Assessment The Worldview of Western Civilization Section 12.2.3, Page 835:
The western “worldview is characteristic of large-scale societies, heavily dependent on resources brought from considerable distances. It is a worldview that is characterized by the denial of sacred attributes of nature… (which) became firmly established about 2000 years (ago) with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious traditions.”
This same treaty considers rocks to be living beings on an equal plane with human beings. Rocks, many believe, will reincarnate into lower life forms; and gradually into human beings.
Bureau of Land Management Internal Working Document.
Human Dimensions of Ecosystem Management Objective/Purpose: “All ecosystem management activities should consider human beings as biological resources…” (Reminiscent of Soylent Green)
This document was brought before Congress. This statement created such an uproar that it was removed. Regardless of its removal, it still serves to prove the mindset of these people; and just because this was removed from a document it does not mean it was removed from the thoughts and the intended goals of those who penned it; or who believe it.
“For the elite to be able to have management of the ecosystem, humans would have no more value than a rock.” – Michael Coffman.
UN Biodiversity Treaty UN Global Biological Assessment Sustainable Human Populations:
“Population growth has exceeded the capacity of the biosphere” (i. e. the earth) “It is estimated that an ‘agricultural world’ in which most human beings are peasants should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people.”
Now I feel is an appropriate time to cover some other areas of government, as well as private organizations that would like to see the population of the world decrease at an astounding rate (up to 90%). This is a dark, bloody agenda that will cause terrible hardship and pain upon millions of people.
World Wildlife Fund, World Resources Institute International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN):
The IUCN involves the EPA, US Fish & Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the United States Forest Service, Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, the National Wildlife Fund, the National Audubon Society, National Resources Defense Council, UNESCO, the Environmental Defense Fund, the U. N. Environmental Program, etc. .
Covenant On the Environment and Development: “Eventually a wilderness network would dominate a region and thus would itself constitute the matrix, with human habitations being the islands. The remaining half of the US would be used as buffer zones.”
“The night before this treaty was ratified, Senator Mitchell withdrew it from the calendar and it was never voted on. It took four men, devoted to God in prayer to stop this treaty. The treaty still waits in the wings. Upon ratification, the US will have no ability to protect its own citizens .” - Michael Coffman.
Henry Kissinger had a similar plan to use food as a weapon in 1974, found in the National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U. S. Security and Overseas Interests; which was adopted as official policy by then President Gerald Ford in November of 1975. This Memorandum outlined a covert plan to reduce population growth in lesser-developed countries by means of birth control, and implicitly, war and famine. Brent Scowcroft, who had by then replaced Kissinger as National Security Advisor, (the same post Scowcroft held in the Bush Administration), was put in charge of implementing the plan. CIA Director George H. W. Bush was ordered to assist Scowcroft, as were the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense and Agriculture.
This document has never been renounced , only certain portions have been amended, leaving it as the foundational document on population control issued in the U. S. Government.
The major players in the founding of this document are as follows:
Henry Kissinger Richard Nixon Margaret Sanger Paul Ehrlich Werner Fornos Timothy Wirth The United Nations Population Fund The United States Agency for International Development Planned Parenthood Federation of America International Planned Parenthood Federation The Club of Rome UNICEF WHO United Nations World Bank.
The document can be read here in its entirety, along with the other organizations and individuals complicit in this abomination:
Let it be noted that Adolph Hitler also used food as weapon, stating that food is “a beautiful instrument…for maneuvering and disciplining the masses.” Food has been used as a weapon of war for centuries. Why then would it be outrageous for the elite to use food as a weapon, both a physical and a psychological weapon, in a declared war on overpopulation? It would not be outrageous at all. As has been said time and time again, history repeats itself.
Now we will cover the Earth Charter.
The Earth Charter; A Radical Global Religion, created by Mikhail Gorbachev and Michael Strong: “The Earth Charter initiative reflects the conviction that a radical change in humanity’s attitudes and values is essential to achieve social, economic and ecological well-being in the 21st century… The commission…plans to circulate a final version of the Charter as a People’s Treaty beginning in mid-1998. The Charter will be submitted to the U. N. General Assembly in the year 2000…(where it will) ensure a very strong document that reflects the emerging new global ethics .” This is unprecedented (it is) the first component of an authentic global governance. We are working for dialogue and peace. We are demonstrating our ability to assert control over our fate in a spirit of solidarity to organize our collective sovereignty over this planet, our common heritage.”
The American people were not allowed to see this. Americans as a whole do not want the UN to be the head of a world government. The one thing the majority of this country values, above most everything else, is their freedom. Or the semblance of freedom we have left should I say.
At the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the Presidential Council on Sustainable Development in 1996 came to the conclusion that the world’s human population should not exceed 500 million people . That is a 93% reduction in population!
According to the UN video, “Armed to the Teeth”; and also in the Freedom From War Policy - put into effect by JFK in 1961-general and complete disarmament and US military power was given over, in full, to the UN. This is a loss of the sovereignty of America. (Read this document at scribd/doc/5009662/Freedom From-War ).
The Earth Charter (1992), A Spiritual Vision: “A consensus has developed that the Earth Charter should be…the articulation of a spiritual vision that reflects universal spiritual values, including, but not limited to, ethical values …a people’s charter that serves as a universal code of conduct for ordinary citizens, educators, business executives, scientists, religious leaders, non-governmental organizers and national councils of sustainable development; and a declaration of principles that can serve as a “soft tax” document when endorsed by the UN General Assembly. "
In its original form, The Earth Charter failed miserably due to open, blatant pantheistic approach. Gorbachev and Strong have worked diligently to change the language and make it appear less obvious. You may be wondering what the Earth Charter has to do with depopulation. It has everything to do with it. Here is a very brief synopsis of what the Charter holds for us.
According to the Charter, we must:
* “Recognize that all beings are interdependent and every form of life has value…” (Unborn children, of course, are not included in the UN’s definition of “every form of life.” The Earth Summit II documents continue to support the UN’s pro-abortion policies.)
* “Affirm faith in the inherent dignity of all human beings.” (UN agencies, however, support policies of euthanasia for those determined not capable of living a “quality” life.)
* “Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations….” (This is a prescription for global socialism in a super-regulated global state.)
* “Prevent pollution of any part of the environment…” (Enforcing this dictum would mean stopping virtually all human activity.)
* “Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price.” (This seemingly harmless sentence would empower the state to price, tax, and regulate all production and consumption.)
* “Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction. (This is a thinly disguised call for that includes abortion and population control.)
* “Eliminate discrimination in all its forms, such as that based on race … [and] sexual orientation.” (This provision is clearly aimed at criminalizing those who refuse to accept homosexuality as positive and good.)
* “Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations. (See;
The Earth Charter has not been ratified . Do not make the mistake of assuming it has not been interwoven into our society, however! It is being taught in our schools and promoted shamelessly by Hollywood, the UN, NBC (owned by GE), ABC, CBS, CNN, HLN & all the Fox owned stations, with the exception of Fox News in order to keep the supporters blinded to the machinations of Rupert Murdock. Do not be deceived!
The ability to freely procreate is soon to be removed from us, much as it has been in China for many years. Not only will we not be allowed to have children, anyone who is termed a “useless eater” (A term coined by Henry Kissinger) will be euthanized: Mercilessly culled.
In Sweden , the “Sterilization Act of 1934″ provided for the voluntary sterilization of some mental patients. The law was passed while the Swedish Social Democratic Party was in power, though it was also supported by all other political parties in Parliament at the time, as well as the Lutheran Church and much of the medical profession. - Wikipedia.
America is scheduled to become compliant to Codex Alimentarius (CA) as of December 31, 2009.
Codex Alimentarius is going to regulate virtually anything that you put into your mouth that is not a pharmaceutical. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has accepted Codex Alimentarius and any nation that is a member of the WTO must become compliant with CA. In any dispute between 2 countries, the one that is Codex compliant automatically wins. This is quite an incentive for all nations to become compliant. – Rima Laibow.
CA guidelines set for vitamins & minerals are said to be voluntary, however, they are scheduled to become mandatory on December 31, 2009 . In 1994, Codex Alimentarius declared nutrients to be poisons: See the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act (DSHEA). Yet fluoride is acceptable! Por quê? It creates complacency. Proper nutrients will ensure a longer, healthier life. Not at all in keeping with a depopulation agenda.
From Esoteric Agenda, a documentary by Ben Stewart:
“In 1962 it was decreed that there would be a move toward total global implementation of Codex Alimentarius. The date set for implementation is December 31, 2009. WHO and FAO are the commissions in charge of CA. They fund it and run it at the request of the U. N.
According to WHO & FAO, epidemiological projections, it is estimated that according to the vitamin and mineral guideline alone; when CA goes into global implementation on December 31, 2009, it will result in a minimum of 3 billion deaths ; 1 billion due through starvation . The next 2 billion will die from preventable diseases due to malnutrition .”
“The U. N. has put out dozens of reports calling for an 80% reduction in population (most put the number at 90%). At the 1997 Women’s World Conference in Beijing, the head of the U. N. Food Program said, “We will use food as a weapon against the people.””
In conjunction with Codex Alimentarius, food will be limited and water consumption will be decreased to 10 gallons per day, per person. The average American uses 140 gallons of water every day. The food provided will be Genetically Modified and nutrient deficient.
As of the Codex Alimentarius (CA) implementation date of 12/31/09, if there were a famine anywhere in the world, it will be illegal to send any high nutrient density biscuits. Or to distribute them!!
Once a country becomes CA compliant, CA can never be repealed. Membership with the WTO robs the member nations of any and all sovereignty. Germany is now CA compliant.
Codex Alimentarius goes hand in hand with Agenda 21 and the Kyoto Treaty. The deadline to implement both Agenda 21 and the Kyoto Treaty is 2012.” (Rima Laibow)
Agenda 21 was birthed out of the Rio Summit 1992. Agenda 21 (A 21), a. k.a. Smart Growth, Regionalism, Visioning Processes, Action Plans, Shared Values; 20/20, Best Practices; Community Festivals & Public/Private Partnerships. These are the names you will hear A 21 called, the buzzwords.
Every county must set up a council to oversee the implementation of A 21. A 21 is Sustainable Development. Steven Rockefeller set up the Earth Charter, referenced above. The Earth Charter is the new One World Religion: Earth worship. The earth is considered to be ‘sacred’, and its protection is a ‘sacred trust’. Global responsibility will demand basic changes in values, behaviors and attitudes of government, the private sector, and civil society.
Under Sustainable Development man is considered to be responsible for the pollution of the planet and is subordinate to all other living creatures . This is a direct contradiction to the Bible where God placed man in a position of dominance over the entire earth. The elite will worship and serve the creature, rather than the Creator.
“The environmental agenda is a spiritual agenda with earth worship at its root. As such, the following practices are all considered to be unsustainable: Fossil fuels, artificial fertilizers, modern systems of agricultural production, irrigation water, herbicides, pesticides, farmland, pastures, grazing of livestock, consumerism, dietary habits, salt, sugar, private property, paved roads, dams, reservoirs, logging activities, fencing of pastures”. – Joan Peros.
“ Every environmental resource must be measured. What can be measured can be managed under the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Project.” – Joan Peros.
Among the things considered to be unsustainable, as listed above, these are included: Monotheism and the family unit. The health care plan of President Obama is under A 21. Under this health care plan, the family unit is very much being attacked. Anyone over age 65 must undergo ‘end of life counseling’ by their doctor every 5 years. Abortion will be pushed that much harder, especially with the Science Czar wanting sterilants put into our water supply! One of the new appointee’s to the Obama Administration once said in a book he co-wrote that a child could be killed up to the age of 2 years old! What kind of a monster could think that is acceptable?
Nearly the exact language used to define Sustainable Development was taken from the 1977 Soviet Constitution !
The Family Dependency Ratio, under the United Nations, will look at every household. They will gauge what that household has produced in accordance with what it has used (i. e., resources) by the water bills, energy bills, etc. Are you using more than you are producing? Are you adding to the collective, or merely taking away? This is how the powers that be will determine whether you are a productive citizen, or, in the words of Henry Kissinger, “A useless eater”.
In 1990, Prince Charles formed The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum to bring together 50-60 of the world’s topmost multi-national/transnational corporations to start buying up governments around the world. This is Public/Private Partnerships: This is the very definition of fascism.
I must stop here. At the rate things are now moving, I could add to this daily. But, December 31 is not so far away now, only 4 months. I must get this out now. Time is short.
If you find this to be worthy, please, spread it everywhere you can. Email it, blog it, post it on forums; mail it. Do what you must. People are asleep. They must be woken up. Forced immunizations are right around the corner. These things will come to pass. It is our job to warn people. Please, I ask you, warn them.