The economic forecast for the years ahead is grim as unemployment remains high, wealth gaps continue to grow, and global debt piles up. Simultaneously the alarm bells warning of an ecological disaster continue to ring and calls for climate lockdowns begin. At times like this the economic elite look to capitalize on the burdens placed on the rest of society by swooping in with already thought up solutions. This time, they’re looking at debt-for-nature swaps to help solve both the economic and ecological crises.
In the last couple of months establishment outlets like Forbes, Project Syndicate, and, of course, the World Economic Forum have put forth the idea that debt-for-nature swaps (sometimes called “climate swaps” in more modern parlance) can be used to save the day. Such a simple premise, swapping debt for environmental protection, sounds great but when you look behind the curtain and find deep-pocketed NGOs, Fortune 500 companies, and the world’s largest financial institutions lurking in the shadows, a more fascist plan comes into view.
The Origins Of Debt-For-Nature Swaps
Like all noble ideas, the idea of the debt-for-nature swap was born out of a secretive meeting comprised of some of the world’s wealthiest people. In 1987, thousands gathered for the 4th World Wilderness Congress in Denver, Colorado. According the the official proceedings a number of working sessions were held to discuss how to best protect the wilderness. Also discussed at this particular conference, but not included in the official proceedings, was the establishment of a “world conservation bank” that would direct different enormous sums from governmental, intergovernmental, public, private, non-profit, and individual sources under the guise of environmentalism. The only reason we know about this proposal is thanks to the work of George Hunt, a local man who volunteered at the event. While there he recorded what he heard. The recordings sound like the meeting notes from a supervillain get-together.
Anywhere there is a plan being hatched by the world’s economic elite there is seemingly a Rothschild present and the World Wilderness Congress was no different. Edmund de Rothschild was in attendance to give his blessing to the globalist proposal:
This International Conservation Bank must know no frontiers, no boundaries. Its funds must be used constructively – and not, and not to be channeled into greedy hands or weapons of destruction. I hesitate to link this bank with World Wilderness; but I would like to link it with our survival, as a human race. This, our generation, must not be cursed by our descendants – if we have any – as to the greatest destructors and squanderers of the world’s resources.
Canadian banker David Lang, presumed to be the same David Lang who has long worked for the Royal Bank of Canada, addressed how to sell the idea of such a bank to the public:
I suggest therefore that this be sold not through a democratic process – that would take too long and devour far too much of the funds – to educate the cannon fodder, unfortunately, that populates the earth. We have to take almost an elitist program, [so] that we can see beyond our swollen bellies, and look to the future in time frames and in results which are not easily understood, or which can be, with intellectual honesty, be reduced down to some kind of simplistic definition.
In 1992 the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) was established to be the international environmental bank that had been discussed in Denver. James Corbett puts the bank’s nefarious connections and true motives in their proper context:
It has so far made over $14.5 billion in grants and co-financed a further $75.4 billion. It is the funding mechanism for five different UN conventions, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which itself established the IPCC.
According to the GEF’s website, the facility “was established on the eve of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, to help tackle our planet’s most pressing environmental problems.” It has 18 “implementing partners” including the Rockefeller-funded Food and Agricultural Organization, the foundation-funded and corporate-friendly International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the Maurice Strong-created United Nations Environment Programme, and the Prince Bernhard / Prince Philip-founded World Wildlife Fund.
If such a pedigree immediately casts doubt on the altruistic intentions of the bank, one is right to be skeptical. In reality, the GEF and its affiliated environmental finance organizations have an ulterior motive: using the debt chains sown by the World Bank and IMF on impoverished third world nations as leverage to gain control over vast swathes of these countries’ lands and resources, and funnel money to the banksters’ corporate cronies.
But just how would the globalist elite (continue to) syphon money out of the developing world and into their own pockets? Enter debt-for-nature swaps.
How Do Debt-For-Nature Swaps Work?
The scheme is simple. The United Nations Development Programme’s definition is an:
Agreement that reduces a developing country’s debt stock or service in exchange for a commitment to protect nature from the debtor-government. It is a voluntary transaction whereby the donor(s) cancels the debt owned by a developing country’s government. The savings from the reduced debt service are invested in conservation projects.
Left out of that definition are the myriad consequences of debtor nations engaging in these swaps. As has been seen in their relatively brief history, these transactions can result in the trampling of indigenous communities, a loss of national sovereignty, and the crippling of economic activity.
Uprooting The Indigenous
The world’s first debt-for-nature swap occurred in Bolivia in 1987 between the federal government and Conservation International (CI), a U.S.-based non-profit with ties to Monsanto, Shell, Northrup Gruman, and Goldman Sachs among other irreputable companies. The organization purchased $650,000 of Bolivian debt for 15 cents on the dollar in exchange for the government establishing a 4-million acre reserve which would be managed by the Bolivian government with help from CI.
The land which was to comprise the reserve is home to several indigenous groups, none of whom were consulted in the process. One such group, the Tsimané, also referred to as the Chimane, were in the process of obtaining land tenure from the Bolivian government when plans for the debt-for-nature swap were being drawn up. Being granted land tenure over their native grounds would have restored many rights to the Tsimané and allowed them to govern their land according to their customs but with the completion of the debt-for-nature swap the tenure remained with the Bolivian government. The terms of this deal prevented many indigenous practices from continuing and within just a couple of years the government would grant concessions to logging companies who could now operate on what remained of the Tsimané’s land.
The Tsimané may have been the first indigenous people to be uprooted from their ancestral lands but they wouldn’t be the last. While the ink was still drying on the debt-for-nature swap in Bolivia, the WWF, Haribon Foundation, and Filipino government started working on a deal that would expand a national park on the island of Palawan. The area that was to now be included in the national park known as Puyos was the ancestral land of the hunter-gatherer Batak people who, as part of the deal, were to be relocated. As part of the relocation plan the Haribon Foundation was to “develop” the Batak people to get them accustomed to this new lifestyle but no such “development” ever took place and the Batak on this part of Palawan were forced to abandon their traditional ways of life .
The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) has been held as an esteemed environmentalist organization since its inception and their famous panda bear logo is synonymous with saving the planet. The organization was founded in 1961 as the World Wildlife Fund with the help of notable eugenicists including Julian Huxley, Prince Berhard of the Netherlands, Prince Philip of Edinburgh, and Godfrey Rockefeller. With a eugenicist mindset this organization has embarked across the globe forcing people off their land and into modern society much to their detriment.
We who have been born into modern society are not safe from these landgrabs either. In the near future private property may simply become a relic of an archaic era.
Restrictions In Paradise
Debt-for-nature swaps are not a relic of bygone conservation practices. They have just been updated to be compatible with the sustainable development agenda as set forth by behemoth institutions like the United Nations. In 2016, Seychelles unloaded $22 million dollars worth of debt in exchange for designating 158,000 sq. miles (410,000 sq. km) of marine territory as “protected.” This marks the first ever maritime debt-for-nature swap and accounts for 30% of Seychelles’ Exclusive Economic Zone and Territorial Sea.
While people have not been forcibly relocated like in previous debt-for-nature swaps, in these newly protected areas most economic activity must cease. Subsistence fishing, fishing without the ability to utilize modern technology, will be permitted though how this manner of fishing is meant to feed the island nation’s current population has not been accounted for.
The final details of what economic activities will be allowed and what regulations they have to abide by have not been released. One aspect of the plan that is confirmed will require “Electronic Monitoring and Vehicle Monitoring Systems [to] be installed and operational in all vessels before catch can be landed.” Presumably this means that everyone allowed in these areas will be fully tracked and traced as is desired by the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals. A similar system was set up off the back of another debt-for-nature in Costa Rica using radar.
The Nature Conservancy (TCN) played a prominent role in making this deal, and many like it, possible. This is yet another environmental organization that has very suspicious connections to the world of big business and finance. NatureVest, TNC’s investment arm, has people from JPMorgan and Walmart sit on its advisory board. TNC’s Business Council is composed of petroleum giants BP and Chevron, chemical companies Monsanto and Cargill, and defense contractor Boeing, among others. They also allow the likes of Disney and BlackRock to purchase carbon credits for completely meaningless reforestation projects. With these connections is it not possible to imagine that one day BP might obtain drilling rights in these waters or that Monsanto could be able to raise GMO fish?
The developed world has a poor track record in respecting the integrity of developing nations. There is some speculation required here, but when certain context is applied to these debt-for-nature swaps it appears as though they are simply masking a new form of colonization which continues to exploit the third world’s abundance of resources and undermine their sovereignty.
In the U.S. the Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA) is the law which structures America’s debt-for-nature program. Since it was signed into law in 1998, loan agreements have been restructured in 14 countries which has funded 20 projects. Like all debt-for-nature programs there are eligible activities like the establishment of national parks, medical research, and training programs for locals which are carried out by NGOs, “other appropriate local or regional entities of, or active in, the beneficiary country,” or the government of the beneficiary country itself. Notably however, section 809(e)(2) makes clear the following:
In providing grants under paragraph (1), priority shall be given to projects that are run by nongovernmental organizations and other private entities and that involve local communities in their planning and execution.
There it is. The NGOs with their ties to eugenicists, Wall Street, defense contractors, and big business run the show when it comes to these projects.
One such partnership under the TFCA in Indonesia pairs the U.S. government, Indonesian government, The Nature Conservancy, and the Indonesian chapter of the World Wide Fund for Nature. As noted above both TNC and WWF have questionable ties to eugenics and big business and their actions here should be viewed as highly suspect. Is it not possible that these partnerships and debt swaps are trojan horses to allow the banks and corporations behind the NGOs to rake in the profits from these landgrabs?
A New Deal For Nature
The question is not whether or not humanity needs to take care of the planet and the life on which it is sustained. The question is do we really want those making these decisions to be made by those in this nexus of big business, conservation, and eugenics? The same people who profit off of war, poverty, pollution, and lockdowns are publicly promoting debt-for-nature swaps and saying that it is time for a “new deal for nature” and that 30% of the entire planet be protected, all under their auspices of course. Do you think they’re going to have humanity’s best interest in mind as they financialize and privatize the globe?
This is just a small sampling of how debt-for-nature swaps have been used to the detriment of humanity and only begins to hint at the web of NGOs, financial institutions, and government bodies that make up this network. More research and more efforts to push back on the elite’s agenda is greatly needed. Even with just the tip of the iceberg revealed it is clear that something is amiss when the world’s most powerful institutions continue to collude against the populations under the cloak of environmentalism.
With this knowledge comes power and the ability to resist. The planet, its people, and its resources are not meant to be controlled in the hands of the few and the better these fascist plots are understood the more we can come together to keep the world open and available to all.