- What's Wrong with Biosphere Reserves
- and World
Heritage Sites
According to the Executive Summary of the Strategic Plan for
the US Man and Biosphere Program, "The Man and the Biosphere Program (MAB) of the
United Nations Scientific, Educational, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is based on the
concept that it is possible to achieve a sustainable balance between the conservation of
biological diversity, economic development, and maintenance of associated cultural values.
The validity of this concept is tested, refined, demonstrated, and implemented in the
Biosphere Reserves."
Likewise, the World Heritage Operational
Guidelines states, "The cultural heritage and the natural heritage are among the
priceless and irreplaceable possessions, not only of each nation, but of mankind as a
whole. The loss, through deterioration or disappearance, of any of these most prized
possessions constitutes an impoverishment of the heritage of all the peoples in the world.
Parts of that heritage, because of their exceptional qualities, can be considered to be of
outstanding universal value and as such worthy of special protection against the dangers
which increasingly threaten them." The Convention is designed to help protect these
unique places.
These are lofty and noble goals that most, if not all Americans could support. As with
all contentious issues, however, the devil is in the details. And there are a lot of
mandates in these various documents that have caused alarm in a rapidly growing number of
Americans -- especially when signs are erected at the entrances of our parks declaring
them to be a United Nations Biosphere Reserves and/or World Heritage Site. As
this alarm has spread, incomplete knowledge of these programs has spawned numerous rumors.
These rumors only muddy the debate and weaken the real reasons these agreements and
treaties are potentially dangerous to the very freedoms and prosperity that are envied by
the rest of the world.
One of the biggest rumors being circulated about the USMAB and World Heritage
Convention concerns the loss of national sovereignty. Although there is a loss of national
sovereignty, the United Nations does not have control over how
our parks and forest lands having a MAB or World Heritage (or both) designation are
managed. Documents concerning these programs specifically state that each nation maintains
its own sovereignty. Furthermore, there is no direct evidence
that UNESCO, in which both programs reside at the international level, has ever
dictated national policy concerning any Biosphere Reserve or World Heritage
Site in the United States.
However, this begs the issue. The problem with these programs isn't in their lofty and
noble goals. The problem is in their mandates and implementation and how they link to
other treaties and agreements, which if accepted by Congress, could lead to direct loss of
sovereignty. When an international treaty or agreement is signed, we agree to the terms
and conditions of the agreements, and by default we have given up a portion of
our national sovereignty in order to meet those terms and conditions. And
while the agreements do not specifically state that the United Nations has sovereignty,
they do permit "partnerships" and other forms of cooperation between the US and
the UN.
This type of "cooperation" was demonstrated in 1995 when the Department of
Interior invited the World Heritage Committee to visit Yellowstone National Park for the
expressed purpose of declaring the park a World Heritage Site, In Danger.
Such a designation mandates the US to correct the problem or face withdrawal of the Park
by the UN as a World Heritage Site, accompanied by much publicity and world scorn. And
since only the World Heritage Committee can remove the In Danger classification,
the US is forced to abide by its recommendations, thereby indirectly giving up
its sovereign right to govern itself.
Rightly or wrongly, by ratifying the World Heritage Convention
in 1972, the US Senate knowingly agreed to give up a portion of US sovereignty to achieve
what it perceived at the time to be a larger benefit or need. The US Senate is authorized
to do this under Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution. Under Article VI this
treaty becomes the supreme law of the land to which state law must comply.
The World Heritage Convention
Although the Senate reviewed and ratified the World Heritage Convention in 1972, the
Senate would likely be alarmed with how this program is actually being implemented by
UNESCO if it fully understood how the treaty is being used to achieve goals other than
those stated in the Convention itself. For instance, the
original
World Heritage Operational Guidelines specifically state:
"To avoid possible embarrassment to those concerned,
states parties
should refrain from giving undue publicity to the fact that a property has been nominated
for inscription pending the final decision of the committee on the nomination in
question. Participation of local people in the nomination process is essential
to make them feel a shared responsibility with the state party in the maintenance
of the site, but should not prejudice future decision-making by the committee."
Paragraph 14 of the
Operational
Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, UNESCO.
(Note: the February 1997 revision of the Operational Guidelines excluded the underlined
portions in this paragraph, for obvious reasons, perhaps because it has caused so much
outrage by local citizens and the US Congress--see discussion below. It is likely however,
that the policy has not been changed in practice, but has simply gone
"underground" where the abuse won't be so blatantly obvious.)
Buffer zones "should include sufficient areas immediately adjacent to the area of
outstanding universal value in order to protect the site...from direct human
encroachment and impacts of resource use outside of the nominated area. The
boundaries of the nominated site may coincide with one or more existing or proposed
protected areas, such as national parks or biosphere reserves."
Paragraph 44b-vi of the Operational
Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, UNESCO.
This policy came to life in 1995 when the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, a group of
environmental organizations, along with the US Department of Interior specifically invited
the World Heritage Committee to visit Yellowstone to review the site to determine if it
should be declared a World Heritage Site In Danger. The reason was a proposed
gold mine about six miles north of the northeastern corner of the Park. Neither the
environmental community nor the Department of Interior wanted the mine to be developed,
even though 1) over ninety percent of the area considered for development was privately
owned, 2) there was a mountain range between the Park and the proposed mine, 3) the valley
where the mine was proposed had been mined for 150 years, 4) the company developing the
new mine had engineered environmental protection safeguards into every aspect of the
project, 5) the company had already spent millions of dollars cleaning up pollution
created by past mining activities by other companies, and 6) the mine development proposal
was undergoing a full Environmental Impact Statement.
Simply stated, the request for the committee to review Yellowstone was an end-run
around US law and regulatory procedure and was designed to be the club that not only would
stop the development of the mine, but give the Department of Interior greater leverage in
deciding the fate of other land use activities on private land outside of the park.
As stated in Paragraph 14 of the original Operating Guidelines, the September, 1995
visit by the World Heritage Committee was kept low-key, and very few local citizens were
initially aware of what was happening. If it hadn't been for a few concerned citizens
living in the area raising the alarm about the visit, the World Heritage Committee might
have come and gone without the local citizenry even knowing about their visit and why they
were reviewing Yellowstone. When the committee was finally backed into a corner, it did
hold a public hearing on the issue, but as directed in Paragraph 14 of the Operational
Guidelines, the hearing had little impact on their final decision. In December, 1995,
Yellowstone was declared an World Heritage Site In Danger. Although the issue is
still not finally resolved, the company developing the mine withdrew its proposal with a
promise from President Clinton of a $65 payment and a permit to develop another mine in an
unspecified "less environmentally sensitive area" of the United States. Such an
area may be difficult to find in the political climate of today.
The US Man and Biosphere Program (USMAB)
As stated in Paragraph 44 of the World Heritage Operating Guidelines, there is a close
link between the concepts now driving the World Heritage Program and the Man and Biosphere
Program. According to the Introduction of the Strategic Plan
for the USMAB,
"each biosphere reserve includes three types of areas: one or more securely 'Protected
Areas,' [Core Reserves] such as wilderness areas or nature reserves, for
conservation and monitoring of minimally disturbed ecosystems; 'Managed Use Areas,'
[Buffer Zones] usually surrounding or adjoining the protected areas, where experimental
research, educational activities, public recreation, and various economic activities occur
according to ecological principles; and 'Zones of Cooperation,'
[Transition Area] which are open-ended areas of cooperation, where managing agencies,
local governmental agencies, scientists, economic interests, non-governmental
organizations, cultural groups, local citizens and other biosphere reserve stakeholders
educate one another in the process of linking conservation, economic development, and
cultural values."
To justify biosphere reserves, the Strategic Plan asserts that,
"Promoting sustainable development and associated cultural values in areas
surrounding the protected areas is a primary means for building the local
constituency for conserving biological diversity in the landscape. As UNESCO's
International Coordinating Council for the Program on Man and the Biosphere recently noted
. . . 'Connected by corridors judiciously linking different ecological units
within the urban-rural and terrestrial/marine landscape, biosphere reserves could provide
the most viable means for the long-term protection of biodiversity.' By
offering society a framework for cooperation, biosphere reserves enable stakeholders to
plan types, levels, and patterns of protection and human uses that optimize conservation
opportunities,..."
Policy formation, policy implementation and the relationship of government to citizens
would be radically altered from historic norms as defined in the Strategic
Plan for the USMAB. Yet, unlike the World Heritage Treaty, Congress has never had any
opportunity to have input into the US Man and Biosphere Program. It was created through by
a Memoranda of Understanding between the US Department of State and UNESCO in 1974 and now
includes 47 Biosphere Reserves in the United States.
The American Lands Sovereignty Act. According to Congressional
Hearings for the American Lands Sovereignty Act in 1996, local citizens know nothing about
a proposed Biosphere Reserve until after unelected bureaucrats
sign the Memoranda of Understanding with one or more federal agencies. Often years go by
before local citizens hear about a biosphere reserve in their back yards. Many citizens
first become aware of the designation when new signs appear stating that the park is a
United Nations or UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. Because of this, Congress has
passed and the U.S. Senate is considering HR 901--The American Lands Sovereignty Act of
1997, designed to give Congress, who represent the people of the United States,
control over how these programs are implemented. There is even serious
consideration that Congress will withdraw the United States from the Man and Biosphere
program entirely.
There are good reasons for these concerns. According to the Executive Summary of the
Strategic Plan for the USMAB,
"U.S. Biosphere Reserves are important areas for developing the data, technology,
and experience needed to implement the recommendations of the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development that relate to global issues, such as biodiversity,
climate change, desertification, forest management, and sustainable development.
Implementation of the Plan will enable U.S. biosphere reserves to contribute more
effectively to U.S. leadership on these issues."
Except for the Framework Convention on Climate Change, the United States Senate has not
ratified any of these Conventions (treaties) nor has Congress passed any law concerning
sustainable development. So why are we busily implementing the key provisions of
these treaties when there is no legal basis for doing so? This is especially
alarming when our federal agencies have made such implementation official goals--totally
bypassing Congress in the process. An August, 1993 EPA Internal Working Document states,
"Natural resource and environmental agencies... should...develop a joint strategy
to help the United States fulfill its existing international obligations
(e.g. Convention on Biological Diversity, Agenda 21). . . .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." (EPA internal working document, August, 1993, pp
9)
This effort is being made under what is known as the "ecosystem management"
program. Not only are these goals being implemented, but American Citizens are being
reduced to mere "biological resources,"
"OBJECTIVE/PURPOSE: All ecosystem management activities should
consider human beings as a biological resource..." (BLM Internal
Working Document, Prepared for: BLM Summit 3/30/94)
In fact, the very descriptions used in the Strategic Plan for the USMAB (see above)
sound exactly like the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Wildlands Project, which
call for setting aside up to one-half of America into these
wilderness core reserves and interconnecting corridors. This linkage is confirmed in
UNESCO's Seville Strategy Biosphere Reserves, where one of the
primary objectives for the program is to
"Promote biosphere reserves as a means of implementing the goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity".
Likewise, UNESCO's Statutory Framework of the World Network
of Biosphere Reserves states,
"The [Biosphere Reserve] Network constitutes a tool for the conservation of
biological diversity and the sustainable use of its components, thus contributing
to the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity and other pertinent
conventions and instruments."
As Americans are beginning to be aware of the dark side to the USMAB program, there has
been a growing clamor that this and other UN programs are eroding our national
sovereignty. When asked point blank about this loss of sovereignty by Sara McClendon
during the March 7, 1997 Press Conference, President Clinton responded in a strange way,
"...there is a not insubstantial number of people who believe that there is a plan
out there for world domination and I'm trying to give American sovereignty over to
the U.N. There was a --I read in our local Arkansas newspaper, one of them the
other day had a letter to the editor saying that, there I go again, there's Clinton out
there trying to give American sovereignty over to the United Nations. Let me just say
this: For people that are worried about it, I would say, there is a serious
issue here that every American has to come to grips with,...and that is, how
can we [the United States] be an independent, sovereign nation leading the world in a
world that is increasingly interdependent, that requires us to cooperate
with other people and then to deal with very difficult circumstances in trying to
determine how best to cooperate.... [W]e live in an interdependent world. We
have to cooperate with people. We're better off when we do. We're better off with NATO.
We're better off with the United Nations. We're better off when these
countries can work together. So I just think for folks that are worried about this out in
the country, they need to be thinking about how -- we're not going to give up
our freedom, our independence, but we're not going to go it alone into the 21st century
either. We're going to work together and we have to."
According to President Clinton, we are giving up national
sovereignty in his quest to assume leadership in "global
cooperation." We do live in an interdependent world, but many Americans are correctly
questioning the need to give up national sovereignty to cooperate. Furthermore, no one has
adequately explained how the USMAB program solves international problems? President
Clinton assures us that we will not give up our freedom, our independence, yet every
single treaty he supports for ratification by the US Senate, does exactly that. The
revised Convention on Climate Change that will be before the US
Senate for ratification in 1998 has a real potential for destroying our economy. The Convention on Biological Diversity, which President Clinton signed
in 1993, would have mandated the MAB concept be implemented
across every acre of America, with up to one-half of America set aside in core wilderness
reserves and corridors. Fortunately the Biodiversity Treaty was stopped from being
ratified, mere hours before the Senate was scheduled to have the cloture vote,
The MAB Living Example--The Champlain Adirondack Biosphere Reserve.
Although
the Strategic Plan for the USMAB, and UNESCO's Seville Strategy
and Statutory Framework outline major changes and impacts to
local citizens, officials for the USMAB claim there will be no impact on local citizens.
But, if nothing is going to change, why even have the MAB program? The program is wasting
taxpayer dollars. In the same manner, these officials also claim that there has never been
an encroachment on property rights within a Biosphere Reserve.
This may be technically correct, but citizens living around the Champlain Adirondack
Biosphere Reserve and others have given testimony to Congress that tends to dispute that
claim. For instance, the Adirondack State Park represents a living example of how a
biosphere should operate. The Adirondack Park Act prohibits all development within the
six-million acre park (of which less than half is owned by the State of New York) without
review by the Adirondack Park Agency. The Agency is governed by 11 commissioners appointed
by the Governor, six of which are from outside the park boundaries. This non-elected,
non-representative commission have instituted zoning that requires some 53 percent of the private
land within the park to have 42.6 acres per home! An additional 40 percent of
privately owned lands has zoning that requires 3 to 9 acres per home. Only 7 percent has
no zoning restrictions. It typically takes three months to many years for an individual to
even get a building permit from the Adirondack Park Agency-- and then only after spending
thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in environmental studies to meet continuously
changing requests mandated by the Agency. The only exception to this harassment of local
residents is when friends of the Agency seek a permit, which is typically granted within a
few weeks.
As an example of a fully integrated biosphere reserve, the Adirondack Park has proven
to be a disaster for the local citizens. So little has changed in the park that when one
drives through it, they are taken back to a landscape frozen in time, with little to no
modernization in most communities. These communities are dying a slow economic death.
And, as if this were not bad enough, a study group dominated by environmentalists was
commissioned by Governor Mario Cuomo to study what additional changes were needed. The
resulting The Adirondack Park in the 21st Century report published in
April of 1990 and supported by the governor, recommended that 1) the already draconian
zoning regulations be tightened even more, 3) additional land be put into Forest Preserve
status, 4) the inclusion of a "transition zone" around the park "to
safeguard [the park's] open space quality," and 5) the "transfer of development
rights" that would eventually move people off of their private property within the
park to areas considered more appropriate for development. Only a bitter fight by local
citizens and key legislators stopped these incredible provisions from being enacted into
law.
While the MAB program has not been directly responsible for the Adirondack horror
story, the non-elected commission and the requirements mandated in the Adirondack Park Act
are identical to those envisioned in the USMAB Program. Worse, the Adirondack Park Act
typifies what can be expected not only for other biosphere reserves, but for every acre of
land within the entire United States if the Convention on Biological
Diversity is ever ratified by the US Senate.
