UN CYBERCRIME TREATY has been highly criticized it is widely reported to overlook, violate Human Rights. Expands global evidence collection, encompasses a long list of non-cybercrimes, has huge over-reaching powers beyond those even detailed in the Un Treaty. The UN Treaty draft was prompted by the UN General Assembly vote in December 2019, the negotiating a cybersecurity accord after Russia took issue with the previous ‘UN Budapest Convention. Russia demanded that the issue they had needs to be addressed. The first draft of the UN Cybercrime Treaty caused some great concerns but now the second draft published on 28^th November is being called a tool of repression. The original purpose of the UN Treaty was combatting cybercrime, but this has now morphed into an globally expansive treaty with far reaching over-reach in both National and International investigations.

It empowers States to cast a wider net of having the ability to access data , thus violating a Nation States privacy laws. The Treaty falls short of reining in  intrusive surveillance powers this endangers human rights undermining the original cybercrime fighting intent

Human Rights Watch acting associate director Deborah Brown said the latest draft is “primed to facilitate abuses on a global scale” because it gives governments expansive cross-border powers to investigate “virtually any imaginable crime – like peaceful dissent or expression of sexual orientation – while undermining the treaty’s purpose of addressing genuine cybercrime.” She said that “Govts should not rush in to conclude this Treaty without ensuring that it elevates, rather than sacrifices our fundamental rights. UN Member State Government have had negotiation sessions over the past few days 19-20^th December in Vienna before the draft is considered in the Headquarters of the UN Assembly at the end of January where yet another session will take place.

The UN Cybercrime Treaty is to be finalized between 29^th January to February 9^th 2024 at the New York Headquarters of the UN Assembly.. The Cybersecurity Tech Accord has been participating in the cybercrime treaty negotiating process since it began in 2021. It has been widely reported that the adoption of the UN Treaty by Nation States in the Treaty’s present form will erode private data, weaken cybercrime, undermine online rights and freedoms across the world. The Cybersecurity Tech Accord has been participating in the cybercrime treaty negotiating process since it began in 2021.The new provision extend to extra-territorial surveillance without safeguards

Some of the concerns are:- Removal of sections of the original draft limit the Treaty’s powers to narrowly define cybercrime.  Nation State surveillance across borders without safeguards and expansion of online fraud. The Treaty as it is now presented allows every government in the world to transfer the personal information of citizens between themselves in secret in perpetuity, and to force the service providers who are responsible for that data to hand it over without any ability to object or refuse on any grounds. There is little UN Nation State objects to the UN Cybercrime Treaty, there is very limited or zilch response to robust human rights safeguards.

NZ Government website (DPMC) reported that NZ is currently engaging in the UN International Cybercrime Treaty (29/4/2022). The Government once again states it promotes a International Rules Based Order, that its important that NZ is in the conversation that shaped this new instrument of international cooperation. The Govt website reports that there were consultations in October 2021  and feedback was sought on NZ’s written submissions as to Treaty negotiations, general provisions, procedural measures and law enforcement referring to the UN Cybercrime Treaty. NZ Government is committed to constructively promoting the Internal Rules based Order.

65 Countries ratified the UN Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. The Budapest Treaty was developed by the Council of Europe in 2001, entered into force in 2004.  18^th February 2021 speeches in the Beehive by David Clark and Kris Faafoi was the announcing of joining the Council Of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, referencing the decisions process was due to the recommendation by the Royal Commission of the Inquiry into the Christchurch Terror Attack (15/3/2019)’ With Kriis Faafoi saying “The government needs to ensure that NZ is confident, secure in the digital world, so we can tackle threats to online wellbeing”

Kris Faafoi said “the government made a number of changes to its policy proposals, looking at ways that Māori have an ongoing oversight role in the implementation and participation to the UN Convention”/ Thus the Convention was submitted to the House Of Representatives for Parliamentary Treaty examination. It was announced by Faafoi that the Convention addresses cross-border cybercrime by aligning the Nations laws with this, facilitating information sharing on current threats and best practice (best practice for the govt and UN Nation States), increases and fosters International dialogue

Parliaments role in International Treaties was published 17^th April 2019 by NZ Parliament. Documents What is a Treaty:- An agreement between 2 countries or with an international entity like the UN or WTO, that binding under International Law. Often known as International Agreements.

Parliaments role in International Treaties. In practice the Prime Minister and the PM’s Cabinet with help from their officials negotiates, decides on whether NZ will join or withdraw from a Treaty. The governments decision is effective whether or not Parliament endorses the Treaty or not. Since 1998 it’s been an constitutional convention that the govt will not (except in an emergency) bind NZ to a Treaty until Parliament has been allowed a minimum period to scrutinize it (This is set out in the Cabinet Manuel). All Treaties in the House are referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, they refer to the Treaty itself, or refers to a more relevant subject matter in the Treaty to a Select Committee to consider.

Although an International Treaty is binding at an International level, it cannot change NZ Domestic Law, only Parliament can do that. Non-binding International Treaties (UN) sit in a place call ‘Soft Law’ where this is easily accessible, can be adopted quickly and non transparently into Domestic Policy making it binding- legally by parliamentary legislation. Binding Internal Laws are also entered into Domestic Laws to make these binding. Non-Binding International laws can be referenced to by the judicial in certain cases as they arise. A Select committee has 15 sitting days in which to report back to the House on Treaty issues, objections etc.,

There were 17 submissions on the consultation as to Cybercrime, this was processed and closed in September 2020. These were received by a range of private companies, organization and individuals. Individual names have been withheld to protect personal information. 13 names of organization however were published. • Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa/The Māori Law Society (THRMOA) • Interim Māori Spectrum Commission (IMSC) • Mega Limited (MEGA) • Internet NZ • Telecommunications Forum (TCF) • Spark • Microsoft • PaloAlto Networks • Copyright Licensing Limited • NZ Authors • ANZ Screen Association • WeCreate • Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC). There were other formal submissions, engagements undertaken with several Iwi/Māori groups and individuals.

It is reported that the UN Cybercrime Treaty risks being a ‘Global Surveillance Pact’ that will trample data privacy, these are human rights concerns. Will pave the way for regimes such as China, North Korea, Iran for regimes to legalize surveillance across borders, to criminalize online speech with the support of the International Community, giving the green light for governments to persecute protestors, activists, independent journalist and marginalized groups. Any person that draw attention to the authoritarian regime aim to criminalize free speech. “That’s where we’re at,” said Katitza Rodriguez, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s policy director for global privacy. “The draft treaty provides the legal basis for governments to make highly intrusive surveillance mechanisms like interception of content and real time tracking of metadata, available ‘to the fullest extent possible’ to foreign governments for almost any sort of criminal investigation of a serious crime with minimal safeguards.”

Specifically: the draft would authorize police to help foreign governments investigate activities that may not be a punishable offense in both countries, she explained.

“The dual criminality principle safeguards human rights, but it is treated as optional,” Rodriguez said. “To uphold global human rights, the proposed treaty must mandate dual criminality.” Deborah Brown, senior researcher and advocate on technology and human rights at Human Rights Watch, said the vague wording in the treaty’s Article 17 is especially concerning because it could allow governments to punish certain speech by defining it as a crime because it was posted online. For many governments, this means cracking down on online dissent or expanding digital surveillance.”

The UN Cybercrime Treaty is to be finalized between 29^th January to February 9^th 2024 at the New York Headquarters of the UN Assembly.. The Cybersecurity Tech Accord has been participating in the cybercrime treaty negotiating process since it began in 2021. It has been widely reported that the adoption of the UN Treaty by Nation States in the Treaty’s present form will erode private data, weaken cybercrime, undermine online rights and freedoms across the world. The Cybersecurity Tech Accord has been participating in the cybercrime treaty negotiating process since it began in 2021.The new provision extend to extra-territorial surveillance without safeguards

Some of the concerns are:- Removal of sections of the original draft limit the Treaty’s powers to narrowly define cybercrime.  Nation State surveillance across borders without safeguards and expansion of online fraud. The Treaty as it is now presented allows every government in the world to transfer the personal information of citizens between themselves in secret in perpetuity, and to force the service providers who are responsible for that data to hand it over without any ability to object or refuse on any grounds. There is little UN Nation State objects to the UN Cybercrime Treaty, there is very limited or zilch response to robust human rights safeguards.

NZ Government website (DPMC) reported that NZ is currently engaging in the UN International Cybercrime Treaty (29/4/2022). The Government once again states it promotes a International Rules Based Order, that its important that NZ is in the conversation that shaped this new instrument of international cooperation. The Govt website reports that there were consultations in October 2021  and feedback was sought on NZ’s written submissions as to Treaty negotiations, general provisions, procedural measures and law enforcement referring to the UN Cybercrime Treaty. NZ Government is committed to constructively promoting the Internal Rules based Order.

65 Countries ratified the UN Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. The Budapest Treaty was developed by the Council of Europe in 2001, entered into force in 2004.  18^th February 2021 speeches in the Beehive by David Clark and Kris Faafoi was the announcing of joining the Council Of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, referencing the decisions process was due to the recommendation by the Royal Commission of the Inquiry into the Christchurch Terror Attack (15/3/2019)’ With Kriis Faafoi saying “The government needs to ensure that NZ is confident, secure in the digital world, so we can tackle threats to online wellbeing”

Kris Faafoi said “the government made a number of changes to its policy proposals, looking at ways that Māori have an ongoing oversight role in the implementation and participation to the UN Convention”/ Thus the Convention was submitted to the House Of Representatives for Parliamentary Treaty examination. It was announced by Faafoi that the Convention addresses cross-border cybercrime by aligning the Nations laws with this, facilitating information sharing on current threats and best practice (best practice for the govt and UN Nation States), increases and fosters International dialogue

The new New Zealand Coalition, no politician in Parliament have shared this information with the people of New Zealand WHY?

LINKS;

https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/fhd7EW-Summary-of-Submissions-Budapest-Convention.pdf

15 page Summary of Submission-Budapest Convention NZ on Cybercrime Convention

https://therecord.media/un-cybercrime-treaty-draft-criticized

https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/our-programmes/national-security/cyber-security-strategy/united-nations-cybercrime-treaty

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/new-zealand-join-council-europe-convention-cybercrime

https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/fact-sheets/parliament-s-role-in-international-treaties/

6TH July 2021 David Clark Commerce Affairs Minister announced to the House “the government has agreed to establish a ‘Consumer Right Data’ Framework (CDR) which is otherwise known as ‘Open Banking’. That consumers would be in the drivers seat controlling their own personal information (data) that is also shared with third parties. This is a mechanism requiring data holders, eg; banks, energy retailers, Internet-Phone, transport, health, education whatever essential products, services you purchase in the market place. Refers to your personal data through banks, financial institutions, your transactional information can be shared with third parties in the commercial and domestic marketplace. The government takes control of the market place and your money. Money in and money out- data in and data out.

In 2021 the government implemented a timeline for ‘Open Banking’ CDR which includes engagement, consultation of draft legislation. Thus industry changing factors, outsourcing of regulation, modernization of payments infrastructure and ongoing digital disruption. Incomes, welfare benefits, superannuation etc., will be deposited and distributed to multiple sources of services & products providers. So that customers data can be much easily stolen. The more data that’s shared with third party companies, financial institutions the more risk that your personal information (data) will  fall in the wrong hands.

The Govts Consumer Data Right Strategy (CDR)..Open Banking is a narrative that centres itself on a promise to make it much easier for the consumer, give them greater opportunities as they are being told they will control their own personal information (data).  The ‘You can trust us, a trust building exercise’. The potential risks are inherent in CDR (Open Banking) system. The Govt implements the right to mitigation measures, the govt tells the individual consumer in the business and domestic sector they now have increased control over their own data” NOTE: Banks carry strategic, operational, model, conduct, financial crime and reputational risks. And continued risks as increased volumes of data and speed is consumed. There are hidden costs associated with compliance, risk, security protocols etc.,

Open Banking is a system that has primary components that are namely players- technological, processers, data and a constant evolving risk. The Open Banking playing field expands way beyond the  traditional financial institution, includes Fintech, banks, data aggregators, credit bureaus, payment networks and third party providers (TPPs). Healthcare has even joined the game. As soon as your personal data is shared it is at risk. The misuse of customer data, a third party’s lack of process controls, fraudulent TPP access. A lack of traceability of customer data use, lack of accountability by all parties & data security across devices.

Eg: If a customer went on say a business trip that involved service provider transactions, those transactions may remain as ‘ open status’ for several days & may require hundreds of data transmittals, and dozens of analytical models to support it. Technology risks, platform business model championed by Google, Amazon, Alibaba is what Open Banking is to financial services. Technology- the ‘risk of risks’ is execution risk, failure of platform components to deliver high performance which is required for customer interactions. There are new challenges stemming from data.

The Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) is certainly warming up. The process starts with Consumer Data Rights (Open Banking) to ‘Open Finance’. Promoting a framework of so called trust, psychologically sucking people in by namely the term ‘Consumer Data Rights’. (We have lost so many Rights over these past few years, wow we are going to get some Rights and the Govt is going to give them to us. Wow. ) Now the authoritarian government can really control your private data, your data in the wrong hands, third parties, cyber attacks., overseas criminal groups, this can be very dangerous .CBDC’s worldwide are in various stages of evaluation of launching national digital currencies. CBDC’s have come to the forefront with the disruption and restrictions of COVID19. The government wants to track your journey in this ever increasing digital financial world. Faster payments, rapid digitization, a demand for a more efficient domestic, cross border value transfers and ‘financial inclusion ‘

‘Open Banking’ and the ‘Open Financing’ revolution the next step to digital currencies. The adoption of the Government ‘Consumer Data Right’ Strategy (CDR). Open Banking moving to Open Financing to change the banking landscape – the goal ‘Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). The dangers of CBDC, there is no limit to the level of control that the govt can exert on people, businesses if money is purely digital and provided directly by the government this means they will have full control of money going in and going out of a persons, a commercial, business account. This is incompatible with ‘freedom’. This is the governments attempt to protect its privileged position, exert more control over peoples lives, their money. The Government saying ‘your money is not really your money’, and your property rights are subservient to the ‘public good’ and the supposed necessity of ‘managing the national economy’.

The International Settlements Central Bankers Report on ‘Future Monetary System’ proclaims the metaphor for the future monetary system like this:- The future monetary system is a tree, its solid trunk is the ‘central bank’ that supports a diverse multi-layered vibrant eco-system of participants and functions however only after the Central Bankers have set the rules. (Reserve Bank of NZ-Is the Central Bank of NZ chief advisory, collaborator with Government- – working with the Treasury) The system serves the public interest but the central bankers define those interests

The authoritarian political control of government is not compatible with economic or political freedoms, therefore limits the protections of Human Rights. The Govts Consumer Data Right Strategy makes consumers choice an unreality.3.Consumers choice is an unreality. Large corporations get greater control. The International Convention of Economic Social & Cultural Rights (ICESR) Article 11 provides for the ‘Rights of All (each one of us-everyone) to an adequate standard of living, adequate clothing, adequate housing, adequate food, an adequate standard of living, a continuous improvement of living conditions

Advancing of digital technologies influence interactions with society to the full realization of Article 11. Which requires access to financial institutions, to a bank account into which your income is paid, to develop credit ratings, apply for home loans, collect welfare payments, superannuation, pay taxes and energy bills, telecommunications – phone, internet, health & education all essential services. All these are reported as promoting social inclusion. Social Inclusion robs people of their individual dignity and human rights. Art 11 ( ICESR) includes other rights that require services for fulfilment, this includes ‘freedom of expression ‘, education, mental & physical health also public participation. Underpinning all of this is ‘privacy’, the foundational rights such as dignity, self-determination for ALL, everyone, each one of us. However advanced technology, data neglects Human Rights and Freedoms.

The real danger of CBDCs is ‘there is no limit to the level of control the govt can exert over people if money is purely digital, this gives them the control of money going in and out of your account. Programmable CBDC is very dangerous, a controlling force over peoples lives, a mechanism for specified behaviour. Like a voucher system is programmed for entry and expiry at certain points in time. Can be only used to purchase certain goods and services. Govt determines how you spend your money, you can’t.

The Reserve Bank of NZ has referred to CBDC as to whether they could support this as a steward of money in the digital future. A Reserve Bank of NZ Executive Summary reports “We characterise our mandates, roles, responsibilities in terms of the Tane Mahuta narrative. Tane and the big trees eco-system. The steward of money and cash in NZ, ensuring that CBDC contributes to a modern inclusive economy. Including the partnering of corporations, large companies with government. Programmes. NZ’s Central Bank-The Reserve Bank of NZ. The govts lead advisor on matters relating to formulating, implementing of monetary policy and all matters related to fiscal policy and financial markets. The Memorandum of Understanding on Information Exchange and Collaboration where the Govt’s Treasury Dept and the Reserve Bank of NZ work together was agreed to in June 2012.

CBDC RISKS- Accumulates sensitive payment and user data on an unprecedented scale, in the wrong hands this data can be used to spy on citizens private transactions, obtain security sensitive details about individuals and business, organizations, groups and can rob them of their money.The unelected globalists at the WEF continue to push schemes -ESG, C BDC whilst calling on governments and businesses to crackdown on ‘misinformation ‘ Remember Arderns war on ‘Free Speech’ Her ‘NZ’s first in the world ‘Algorithm Charter’ 2019

The World Economic Forum representatives of Governments, CEOs of large corporations very influential philanthropists etc., of Multistakeholder Corporate capitalist economies. WEF references the building of ‘Inclusive Eco Systems, Digital ID to provide financial services to households. “A digital ID layer should be developed independently of other parts of payment processes’ WEF Forum, Future Focus 2025. The World Economic Forum (WEF) references:- as hundreds of govts explore fully traceable programmable and permission based digital currencies that will allow central bankers to control what you can and cannot purchase, these CBDCs will require that every citizen have a digital wallet pegged to their Digital ID. The unelected WEF call on governments and corporations to establish rules for Digital ID Governance.

Vaccine passports by nature serve as a digital ID – WEF Feb 2022. Digital ID Future Agency “Next level of data intermediaries (embedded in body, devices, homes, cities etc.,WEF Feb 2022. Digital ID schemes have been on the rise in recent years thanks to vaccine passports which according to WEF Feb 2022 ‘serve as a form of digital ID’. While Vaccine Passports store highly medical data about an  individual the globalists project that Digital ID will expand to include credit history, social media activity, and online purchase behaviours. This is extremely invasive.. Devices in your body, your home and the cities where you live- aimed at collecting as much information about you as possible. Constant surveillance in Real Time.

The transition to a lower carbon economy requires a large rewiring of the global economy with approx. $3.5 trillion of investment needed annually for decades, WEF ‘Future Focus 2025’. Finance plays a pivotal role in facilitating the transition to net zero economy, innovative approaches are needed to bridge the net zero funding gap – WEF ‘Future Focus 2025’. Lumping together digital inclusion, finance and the environment is the concept of ESG scoring for allocating, distributing digital payments with programmable CBDC’s. According to the report ‘Finance plays a pivotal role in facilitating the transition to a net zero economy, innovation approaches are needed to bridge the net zero funding gap.

Rewiring of the global economy is the same as the ‘Great Reset’. Taking advantage of the fight against climate change, of the shock inflicted by the pandemic to implement long lasting and wider environmental changes. Making good use of the pandemic by not letting the crisis go to waste.- COVID19 The Great Reset. Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret 2020 ‘Presenting a rare but narrow window of opportunity, to re-imagine, reset our world. Massive exploitation of the Pandemic and Climate Gloom and Doom narrative. Never let a good crisis go to waste.WEF Future Focus 2025 “When lacking data to quantify risks and evaluate their likelihoods, well formed scenarios developed in a collaborative process can help draw out potential impacts, can educate the public on possible threats”

Governments and corporations to invest narratives using behavioural science mechanisms, (manipulating behaviour). Any critical thinking that goes against the WEF narratives label them as ‘Misinformation & ‘disinformation’. Narratives to shape perceptions, which in turn form realities for people, that end up influencing choices and actions. -The Great Narrative, Klaus Schwab & Thierry Malleret 2022. “In the battles for hearts and minds of human beings, narrative will consistently outperform data in its ability to influence human thinking and motivate human action”. In the absence of hard data Future Focus 2025 (WEF) report reiterates the importance of narratives as ‘well formed scenarios’ to ‘manipulate perceptions’

The WEF calls on corporations and governments to regulate misinformation, disinformation on social media. Outsourcing critical thinking, giving all trust to government bureaucrats and unelected technocrats. The 134 page report draws from and supports the WEF platforms dedicated to catalysing a new economy, a new society- The Global Redesign, the Great Reset agenda. A roadmap for steering society to re-engineering people, planet for immense profit of the few by unelected entities.

ESG scoring is not a mandate from the people  but a concept dreamed up by unelected globalists bureaucrats to control the global economy, time to push back. Our Free-market economy has served us extremely well, is innovative, has a significant effect on the countries growth and wealth, provides jobs. A free market economy determined by supply and demand. (Free-market = Freedom Of Choice)

Digital ID, CBDC, ESG, Open Banking, Open Financing, Social Inclusion = Corporate Capture. Corporates the drivers in the front seat, governments as back seat passengers, and the people, small businesses, farmers, rural communities are the roadkill. NOTE: Ardern used NZrs as guineapigs for WEF project  Re-imagining Digital Regulations’

SOLUTION? Ideas- ‘Staying local, bartering systems, get to know your community. Get in the face of politicians from all parties to introduce a Citizens Initiated Binding Referendum and a constitution set in concrete’, more face to face group meetings.

BEWARE OF: Financial Inclusion, Consumer Right Data Strategy,(Open Banking) and Open Financing leading to Central Bank Digital Currency. The Consumer Data Right Strategy is on the governments agenda now

RESEARCH PRODUCED BY: – Carol Sakey

WEF pushes digital ID, CBDC, ESG & crackdowns on ‘misinformation’ in Future Focus report

https://www.finextra.com/the-long-read/222/the-role-of-digital-currencies-in-the-new-era-of-open-finance

https://www.cato.org/commentary/central-bank-digital-currencies-freedom-are-incompatible

https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2013-01/rbr-3025591.pdf

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/in/Documents/financial-services/in-fs-cbdc-noexp.pdf 36 pages.

https://sociable.co/business/wef-digital-id-cbdc-esg-misinformation-future-focus-report/ WEF Pushes Digital ID, CBDC and ESG in misinformation in Future Focus report July 8th 2022

https://www.teradata.com/Blogs/Look-Out-for-Risks-in-Open-Bankinghe

https://chapmantripp.com/trends-insights/open-banking-one-step-closer-to-reality-in-new-zealand/

https://www.teradata.com/Blogs/Look-Out-for-Risks-in-Open-Banking

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/govt-agrees-establish-consumer-data-right

NOTE: CLICK IN THE IMAGE ABOVE WHICH LINKS YOU TO MY RUMBLE VIDEO ON THIS SUBJECT 

Klaus Schwab Chief Executive and Founder of the World Economic Forum always wanted to be a high ranking member of the UN, justifying his reputation on the world stage, building more prosperity, massive profits for the shareholders of multistakeholder corporations. Hence putting a stranglehold on small businesses and small family farms world wide.

Prince Philp promoted the WEF Global Redesign, as did the then Prince Charles, now King Charles. (WEF Global Resource Initiative)                                                    Prince Charles took part in the launch of the World Economic Forums Great Reset in 2020 at the annual DAVOS gathering.

Schwab had already made a draft report of his 700 page Global Redesign, the  Corporate Capture of Global Health, Infrastructure, Education, Agriculture etc., etc., The UN-WEF Strategic Public Private Corporate Partnership incorporate massive democratic deficit.

There is massive amounts of information being hidden by politicians and mainstream media, important information that affects all our lives and the lives of our children,of future generations to come.

NOTE: PLEASE CLICK IN THE IMAGE ABOVE THIS WILL LINK YOU TO MY RUMBLE VIDEO WHERE I SHARE FURTHER INFORMATION WITH YOU ON THE ABOVE.

FLAWED DEFINITIONS RISK MAJORILY SEVERELY IMPACTING LIVES OF BILLIONS OF PEOPLE WORLDWIDE.  Researched By Carol Sakey. WAKE UP NZ. https://wakeupnz.org

The Hunger numbers, are we counting them right? Refers the Millennium Goals that had expired hence the introduction to UN Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals within this 169 Targets. https://www.the guardian.com  17/02/2015

UN and International NGO’s rallied around the conclusion that Agenda 21 had been very successful with its anti-poverty movement, they reported that poverty had been halved and one of the biggest goals of the MSGs of significantly decreasing poverty had  was only a little shy of the target they aimed to achieve. Powerful, compelling evidence eager to convince the world that the global economic system that they had introduced is the right track to be on and to continue down with their new UN Agenda 2030. To make this happen “We must do more of this”

The UN had reported the number of hungry people worldwide, that had been steadily increasing over the previous 2 decades not decreasing.  UN Nation Governments in 1996 took the World Security Pledge that they would cut the number of people suffering from hunger in half, there we reported to be at that time 780million hungry people worldwide according to UN Reports. 2009 according to UN Reports 1,023 million hungry people approx. 30% more. NOTE: This is not unfamiliar-The International Shifting of the Goal Posts.

The Millennium Declaration was signed in 2000. At that time the MDGs pushed the base rate back to 1990, allowing them to claim China’s progress during the previous decade, even though this had nothing to do with the MDG Campaign.

At the end of 2012 with only 3yrs to go to the expiry of the MDGs the UN Food Agriculture Org., (FAO) announced an approved methodology of counting hunger, they found it necessary after reports of increase hunger spread to change their reporting, so they revised the numbers.  They managed to transform a steadily increasing rising trend in hunger stricken people to a  decreasing number. As they retroactively estimated about food supplies and new assumption were introduced that focused on ‘Calories’

It had been reported that 2009-2010 showed a dramatic increase in the number of hungry people worldwide this being due to the food price crisis, and reckless financial speculation which sparked riots in much of the developing world.  It was reported that there was a jump in numbers of undernourished people in 2009-2010, their were many voices of concern that question FAO (UN) reliability of their estimation of hungry people globally. Hence a request was made to the FAO (UN) by the committee of the ‘World Food Security’ to organize a technical round table to discuss FAO measurements of under nourishment.

The FAO had come under fire for the decision change of the methodology they had used for 25 years in their longitude study, just 3 years before its conclusion, which was seen as bad scientific standards. Scholars raised questions about the definition of FAO’s ‘hunger’ claiming it gravely underestimates the scale of the problem..The FAO counting people as hungry only by ‘Calorie’ counting.

Measurements of ‘Calorie’ intake at rock bottom levels that is ‘inadequate’ to cover a sedentary persons lifestyle (1800 calories per day) Most poor people do not lead sedentary lifestyles they are usually engaged in demanding physical labour (India the average rickshaw driver uses 3,000-4000 calories per day) FAO recognized the flaw and responded “that ‘ideally’ undernourishment should be accessed at the individual level by comparing individual energy intakes however the approach is just not feasible when it comes to gathering data”  The Food Agriculture Org., (UN) do not stop there, its said no ‘methodology is perfect, well UN’ Methodology is far from perfect. It’s predictive, uses assumption, many variable models when it comes to data gathering.

The United Nations launched its UN Agenda 2030 17 SDGs included are 169 Targets- A one script for all People-Planet for much Profit for the Global Elite. It was headed the ‘Goal of Eradicating Hunger and Poverty Once and For All’, and it has no realistic measurements of hunger. It’s seriously flawed and corrupted with whopping lies.

2.Despite the fact we collectively produce enough food for everyone in the entire world even at 3000 calories per day. Yale Prof., Thomas Pogge puts it like this “Somebody, somewhere needs to say the poor have been dramatically portrayed, this is important because it comes to question whether our global economy is actually on the right track at all”

The UN tells us their solution is working, that’s a huge whopping lie.. it is not.  The FAO have revealed the link between growth and nutrition is weak, therefore we need to put productive resources back in the hands of the people, small farmers etc.,  We need to reverse land and water grabs (Small farms being grabbed by large investors)  We need to put the handbrakes on monopolization of land, seeds and supply chains by corporations like Monsanto and Syngenta.  The data is clear that small scale farmers do a better job and are better for the environment that these large greedy corporations (Research Resource Jackson Hickols, Anthropologist. London School of Economics)

It will take moral courage to challenge the Government, to challenge the transnational corporations (TNCs) that are massively appropriating our food systems throughout the world. As long as we obscure the truth we are less likely to notice the urgency to act is upon us.    27^th September 2014 New York Times article entitled ‘Counting The Hungry’ It referenced the FAO (UN) methodology being flawed, wrong. Calculations made by ‘World Nutrition Journal.Org. The cooking of the books. The publishing of FAO’s calorie counting, the inaccurate figures.

https://www.wrm.or.uy  Article – Disputes  the FAO (UN) definition of ‘Forest’ as not being open and clear.  21/09/2016 Article ‘Silence In Response to Previous Demand for the FAO (UN) to change its flawed data as to FAO definition of ‘Forest’.  On International Day Of Forests’ 2017 another request was sent to the FAO (UN) to change its definition on the word ‘Forest’. September 2015 the World Forestry Congress was held in Durban, thousands of people packed the streets to protests against the FAO (UN) as they insisted that FAO change the definition of ‘Forest’.

 The FAO (UN) insisted on defining ‘Forest’ to be basically just a bunch of trees. Being a minimum  area of land covered by a minimum number of trees at a minimum height and a canopy percentage.  FAO promoting the establishment of million hectares of industrial plantations. A petition with a 1000 signatures was given to FAO who were hosting the World Forestry Congress gathering. But nothing changed.

The response from FAO as to its flawed definition of ‘Forest’- “There are over 200 national definitions of the word ‘Forest’, that reflect a variety of stakeholders in this matter. To facilitate the reporting data a globally valid, simple of categorization of forests is required” Tats it, and nothing changed.  FAO definition of ‘Forest’ did not influence the way 200 National definitions of ‘Forests’ was formulated at all. This definition was adopted by the UN FAO in 1948 and has remained ever since until this very day

The influence of the Food Agriculture Org., (UN) goes way beyond the definition of the word ‘Forest’. It is also utilized in the UN Climate Change Convention UNFCCC. By adopting FAO  definition of ‘Forest communities, farmers are extremely negatively affected.

UNFCCC has globally promoted a view of forests as an area of land containing only tree’s. As for the UNFCCC its mainly the tree’s, the forest that matters because of the capacity to store carbon as they grow, not forest dependent communities. Rural communities have been negatively impacted by the governments restrictions, the interests are not in the communities themselves but the ‘Offset Projects, referred to as REDD + Projects.

The flawed word ‘Forest’ introduced by the UN is a complexly false way of reducing deforestation, it’s a money making opportunity that threatens not just local communities but the whole of the country, nations worldwide. (Expanding the ‘Carbon Sink’ tree plantation). The attracting of climate finance, based on the presence of tree’s.  FAO definition of ‘Forest’ influences actions of the ‘financial and development’ institutions, promotes large industrial logging of forests, industrial tree plantations (REDD + Carbon Offsets).

The World Bank is part of the UN conglomerate that partners the FAO (UN) and has been for many decades, as to forest related initiatives. They join forces in the most ambitious plans launched during UN FCCC COP@! In Paris the “African Forest Landscape’. A restoration initiative aiming to cover 100 million hectares of deforested, degraded lands in the African continent with trees.

The World Bank jumped on the bandwagon making $1 billion available for the plan to proceed. The World Bank viewing ‘reforestation’ is crucial as to how the world itself defines a forest. (But does not disclose what FAO (UN) defines as a ‘forest’. The World Bank opened the door wide for tree plantation companies, corporations to enter communities throughout Africa.

The ambitious Restoration Plan promoted by the World Bank and FAO, that strongly resembled a previous plan they had both partnered ‘The Tropical Forestry Action Plan that totally failed.

NOTE: FAO DEFINITION OF ‘FOREST’ According to the FAO, Forest is defined as: “land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than. 5 meters and a canopy cover of more than 10 percent, or trees able to reach these thresholds -2022.

https://washingtonpost.com. Climate Pledges built on Flawed Emissions Data. ‘The plan to save the world from the so called worst man made climate change is built on data the world is relying on, but the ‘data’ is inaccurate. Food giants reap enormous profits during times of crisis..

https://phys.org.news-Food and Agri-business billionaires are reportedly raising their collective wealth. Child labour is on the rise..So are billionaires in the food system.

https://fairworkproject.org- Cargill is one of four companies who control 70% of the global market for agricultural commodities, including wheat, soy and cocoa

Top NZ Landowners revealed/Otago Daily Times-Online News. November 2019 :Today we reveal the top private landowners in New Zealand-family owned Tiong Group own forestry, media and property Assets.

The definition of the FAO (UN)  ‘Forest’ has extremely wide negative impacts on New Zealand because ‘Forests’ are related to land and water grabs world wide.Ardern’s so called emergency Zero Carbons is about

CONTROL’- Control of Land hence food and ultimately New Zealanders lives. ‘The Godless, Cruel Plundering of New Zealand. 

What will it take to change this ‘MORAL COURAGE”  – A NATION THAT WORKS TOGETHER ALSO STAYS TOGETHER AND THRIVES TOGETHER.

SADLY I SAY THERE ARE FAR TOO MANY PEOPLE WHO CANNOT SEE THE WOOD FOR THE TREE’S.. THEREFORE ARE UNABLE TO SEE THE MASSIVE  PROBLEMS THAT FACE US TODAY,  AS JACINDA ARDERN’S GODLESS GOVT DELIBERATELY PLUNDERS NEW ZEALAND’S SOCIETY AND ECONOMY.

NO FARMERS ‘NO FOOD’…WAKE UP NEW ZEALAND by Carol Sakey