What is Managed Relocation?

Managed relocation (which is sometimes also referred to as "managed retreat”) involves the strategic relocation of people, buildings and other assets from areas vulnerable to climate change and natural hazards. An article by the BBC asks the question, "Is the world ready for mass migration due to climate change?”

It is being said that 1 - 3 billion people are predicted to be displaced due to climate change (source).

Could you be forced out of your home due to climate risk?

The NSW Government released the State Disaster Mitigation Plan (SDMP) 2024-2026 in February 2024.  Within the plan they address the need to develop a state policy for largescale multi-hazard managed relocation. This managed relocation policy will be released in mid-2025 and will be led by the NSW Reconstruction Authority & Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (source: page 11 of the State Disaster Mitigation Plan). The SDMP addresses relocating people and whole communities on page 79 of the plan.

The Climate Council is also on board with managed relocation. It discusses how "towns, cities and communities must be rebuilt – where appropriate to do so – in a way that takes into account the inevitable future changes in climate and makes them more resilient. In some very high-risk locations, this may mean not rebuilding at all – managed relocations must be discussed as an option for some of the most vulnerable and exposed communities" (source: Climate Council Australia - Uninsurable Nation report).

The SDMP (State Disaster Mitigation Plan) says that managed relocation can broadly be categorised into two approaches:

  • Buy-back scheme – where government purchases a property at risk and the property owner is responsible for finding a new location to move to. Some programs provide social support to assist people in relocating, including finding employment.
  • Community relocation – includes not only removing the people from the area at risk, but the subsequent resettlement of those people in an alternative location. These programs aim to move a number of people and keep those people together in their community. Some mechanisms that might be used include a:
    • voluntary scheme where the owner can elect to sell to the government or another private party;
    • voluntary scheme where the government has sole rights to purchase the property;
    • voluntary scheme which reverts to compulsory once a trigger point has been realised (for
      example, erosion of land reaches a certain point); and/or
    • fully compulsory scheme.

The concern is that these 'climate risks’ are based on modelling, which is basically a guessing-game and may not reflect actual risks. For example, my home that I have been living in for almost 10 years, that is not near the ocean and has never experienced floods, bushfires or any other natural disasters, is somehow classed as being “high risk” for climate change by 2030.

How do they apply climate risk to a property?

The modelling they are using to determine these risks on properties, appears to come from XDI who turn "physical climate risk into actionable metrics.”

This data is produced by compounding historical weather data from meteorological stations, modelling from climate agencies such as the CSIRO, University of NSW, University of Queensland and the United States National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

There are over 40 global climate models internationally, which give estimations for the future climate across the globe - based on different assumptions on how greenhouse gas concentrations will increase. These models all churn out very different results.

The Climate Council look at the models that predict the most extreme outcomes to classify “at-risk” areas. This information is in turn used by insurance companies to either increase home insurance or refuse it.

How can we trust that the model they are using is an accurate one? How can we trust that enough research has gone into the alleged harmful effects of carbon dioxide when, in 2016, Larry Marshall, the CEO of CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research), fired hundreds of climate scientists, claiming the science was settled and that it was time to focus on mitigation instead of continued research (source: Financial Review).

If you would like to see how your area is affected by "climate risk”, you can do so by using the 'Climate Change Risk Map’ on The Climate Council website.

How may "climate risk" affect your property?

Your home may lose market value - The Committee for Sydney, whom we will discuss further down in this article, want to update all Section 10.7 certificates (a certificate which provides information such as the zoning of the land, permissible and prohibited land uses, details of exempt and complying development, controls for development or hazards), to include how global warning is expected to change or exacerbate the hazards of homes. This could affect the value of your home, should you wish to sell it.

Council rate increase - The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) says that "Climate change is one of the most significant issues that will impact the lives of people in NSW now, and into the future.” It goes on to say that councils will have to increase their spending, which won’t be entirely covered by government grants, so it would be reasonable to expect ratepayers to share those costs (source: Coast News).

Home alterations - In the SDMP there is a call to introduce legislation for building codes that homeowners will need to comply with in order to meet safety standards which could be unaffordable for families already struggling with the cost of living (source: Page 12 of State Disaster Mitigation Plan).

Who is at risk?

Of the top LGAs at risk of climate change, the Central Coast nsw is ranked the number one at risk. Here are the top 20:

Page 62 of State Disaster Mitigation Plan.

  • The Climate Council has produced a ranking of the top 10 most at-risk electorates from climate change and extreme weather events (covering bushfires, extreme wind and different types of flooding), based on the percentage of ‘high risk’ properties in each federal electorate across Australia.
  • Across Australia, approximately 520,940 properties, or one in every 25, will be ‘high risk’, having annual damage costs from extreme weather and climate change that make them effectively uninsurable by 2030. 
  • In addition, 9% of properties (1 in 11) will reach the ‘medium risk’ classification by 2030, with annual damage costs that equate to 0.2-1% of the property replacement cost. These properties are at risk of becoming under-insured.
  • They say that 15% or 1 in 7 properties in “at-risk federal electorates” will be uninsurable within 10 years.

Source: The Climate Council

What will happen to the land once people are removed due to climate risk?

The NSW Reconstruction Authority Act 2022 No 80 is an Act to establish the NSW Reconstruction Authority; to provide for the Authority’s functions and powers; to provide for other matters to assist NSW communities to recover from disasters and improve resilience for potential disasters.

The Authority can do the following:

Who is behind all this?

Some of the organisations involved in the climate risk assessment and mitigation planning are 'The Committee of Sydney’, 'Resilient Cities’ and the World Economic Forum.

  • The Committee of Sydney are a think tank that create policies and influence government. They brought out a very similar report to the State Disaster Mitigation Plan. Their report is called 'Defending Sydney’ which was completed in collaboration with Canadian-based private corporation AECOM, IAG, which is a conglomeration of insurance companies and 'Resilient Cities' which is a Rockefeller initiative. The Committee of Sydney talk about putting a 'medium to high risk' overlay on the Central Coast NSW region. Principle 2 in the “Defending Sydney” report talks about relocating whole communities together, implying there will be somewhere for them to be re-housed. It would be nice to have more transparency as to how and where.
  • 'Resilient Cities' which partners with The Committee of Sydney is built on the 100 Resilient Cities initiative pioneered by the Rockefeller Foundation in 2013, as part of the global centennial initiative. Melbourne and Sydney are a part of this initiative . They have been signed up as C40 cities (source).
    To learn more about how the Rockefeller Foundation has been involved in the climate narrative, there is a book called “Rockefeller - Controlling the Game” which you can purchase here.
    We are not affiliated with this book in any way.
  • The World Economic Forum, United Nations and the 1000 largest corporations, signed a strategic partnership in 2019 to implement the United Nations 17 Sustainable Development Goals otherwise referred to as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Governments and councils use these goals to implement local policy and legislation. The policies and legislation are almost always presented as responses thought up by a nation's own government. However, in reality, they come directly from these unelected corporate globalists.
    • The World Economic Forum's influence extends deeply into local communities through their young global shapers program, which states that their "mission is to inspire, empower and connect young leaders to reach their full potential, shape decision-making processes and drive positive change in their communities and the world.”
    • If you look into the various hubs around Australia, and search the various names of the young global shapers listed, you will find it is full of climate activists, people linked to corporations involved in profiting from “sustainable solutions” who all subscribe to the World Economic Forum's views about how our communities should be shaped. Again, we need to ask ourselves if we really want a foreign organisation to have such a huge influence on our way of life and urban planning.

Why is the community not being informed by local government?

It is interesting to note that the State Disaster Mitigation Plan (SDMP) is around 158 pages long - YET the one supplied to local councils is summarised in approximately two pages, with no mention of managed relocation. Why is this being kept quiet? Why is it up to individuals to track this information down rather than the council being briefed thoroughly with the information to inform locals? Mainstream media also appears to be silent on this.

The SDMP states that community consultation plays a fundamental part in reducing and adapting to natural hazard risk. However, they consulted with only 35 community members across NSW who participated in two online workshops (source: Under heading - Engagement > "How many stakeholders did you consult with?" of the State Disaster Mitigation Plan).

Is there a connection between managed relocation, smart cities and the 30 x 30 agreement?

Thirty-by-thirty (30×30) refers to efforts by the global community to conserve 30% of terrestrial and marine habitat by 2030.

In December 2022, the Australian Government joined 195 other nations in signing on to the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), as part of its commitments to the Convention on Biological Diversity. A headline target of GBF is to protect at least 30% of the world’s land, freshwater and ocean ecosystems by 2030.

In 2020, the United Nations biodiversity chief called for the conservation of the earth's surface to be extended to 50%.

The United Nations, with whom our governments have signed many environmental treaties, are very passionate about getting populations into smart “sustainable” cities, and replacing agriculture with synthetic foods.

Is the "climate crisis” an opportunity to relocate people into these cities? Is conservation a guise for a land grab? To read more about this and listen to an Australian farmer who has had his land essentially rendered useless through more and more environmental restrictions imposed upon him due to alleged conservation, see our article ’The UN 30 x 30 plan sits behind the smart city agenda to get people off the land.'

Managed relocation and the connection to Smart Cities in New Zealand

Samantha Edwards unmasks the smart city agenda in New Zealand in this 23-minute video. Keep in mind that smart cities are a global concept, so carbon copy agendas are playing out in Australia also.

What will a Smart City look like?

Smart cities are sold to us as “sustainable and resilient”, and it appears that the powers-that-be would like to get us off the land and into these stack-and-pack cities.

But what will they actually look like? Since there is no transparency, we have to look to other places in the world that are onboard with the smart city agenda to get an idea of what to expect.

Saudi Arabia is planning on returning 95% of its land back to nature. Their smart city or “cognitive city" plan is already underway. There will be no roads, no cars or emissions. It will run on 100% renewable energy, and 95% of land will be preserved for nature.

They have named this city plan “NEOM" and it is also referred to as 'The Line.’ It will accommodate 9 million people, built on 34 square kilometres. Residents will have access to all daily essentials within a 5-minute walk, in addition to high-speed-rail with an end-to-end transit of 20 minutes.

The Saudi Arabian government has invested heavily in artificial intelligence. TONOMUS is building the world’s first mixed reality-metaverse as a digital twin (exact digital replica) of NEOM city. People will be able to attend concerts and various experiences through virtual reality. Is this the future we want for our children? Do we want them to experience life through a simulated world?

The Line is an extreme example of a high-tech smart city, but here is a video to give you a better idea of what it will look like.

Where are they building these smart cities?

The Commonwealth Smart Cities Plan was introduced in 2016 under Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (source : Smart Cities Plan). We should ask ourselves why the plan for smart cities has been around for such a long time and yet the public has not been informed about the plan.

The Global Smart Cities Alliance was established in June 2019 and led by the World Economic Forum. As of 2022, it has been leading more than 200,000 cities and local governments, companies, start-ups, research institutions and non-profit organizations.

The Alliance is leading numerous initiatives in more than 36 pioneer cities around the world focusing on smart city governance. It unites local and national governments, private sector partners and city residence around a shared set of principles for the ethical use of smart technologies (source). Do you remember electing these people to instruct our governments to make decisions on our behalf?

It was already mentioned above that both Sydney and Melbourne have already signed up as C40 cities, which are essentially smart cities. To read more about C40 cities and their plan to impose carbon interventions, read our article here.

In 2018, the Committee for Sydney put out a report that the Central Coast and five other cities should come together as one mega-city called the "Sandstone Mega Region". Then in 2022, the government announced an almost carbon-copy plan called the “Six Cities Region” that was to be managed by the Greater Cities Commission. That is quite an influence the Committee of Sydney have on government.

It is interesting to note that the taskforce that created the initial Sandstone Mega-Region report were claimed to consist of key organisations across Sydney, Illawarra, Central Coast and The Hunter. However, on closer inspection, it turns out that the CEO of the Business of Cities has a partnership with the World Economic Forum.

The Greater Cities Commission was dissolved in January 2024, but its functions have been moved to the newly-formed Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, which makes it harder to track down the people in charge and open a dialog with them about the Six Cities region going forward.

The Internet of Things (IoT)

Smart city plans aim to connect one trillion sensors to the internet by 2025. Examples of this will be smart appliances that send data to smart metres about how much electricity you’re using. “Experts suggest that in the future every (physical) product could be connected to ubiquitous communication infrastructure and sensors everywhere will allow people to fully perceive their environment” (source: page 16 of WEF Tipping Points Report). It seems the idea is that people can predominantly experience their environment through technology. How is technology and surveillance going to improve the quality of our lives?

The irony is that while they sell us smart cities as part of a sustainable future, to actually power such a huge technology-driven city would require a substantial amount of energy that could not be supported by renewables alone. How does this make sense?

Why are economists, bankers and investment funds taking an interest in "the climate crisis”?

Nature is becoming a new economic sector with large financial returns for investors using conservation as a bargaining tool to either relax environmental restrictions or strengthen them. In reality, however, corporations are simply paying other corporations or government for the destruction they cause to the environment.

Conservation is an expensive feat, and that is why they are partnering with the private sector to fund environmental protection, but can these corporations be trusted? Can government be trusted when the majority of private political donations come from corporations (source: School of Social Sciences - The Australian National University)?

In Australia, there is a growing trend for MPs to become directly involved in the corporate fundraising efforts of their parties. Ministers and staff are enlisted to engage with donors and business supporters, with the aim of raising funds for their political parties. It is known for business leaders to pay $1,400 to get near a federal minister.

When political parties lodge their return to the AEC, they are not required to identify the corporations which attended party fundraising events. This allows companies to deny they are political donors (source: The Age).

It is also important to note that due to weak political-funding disclosure laws, a large percentage of donors can remain anonymous. For example, in the financial year 2019-20, more than half of the funding for the major political parties remained secret (source: The Conversation).

The NSW government is classing waterways and nature as infrastructure and an asset class that can yield "financial return for your actions through environmental market opportunities."

Government documents discuss Eco System Services - this is a model which determines a pricing on the systems which nature provides us - e.g. clean air, clean water, pollination and carbon sequestration.

In a very alarming move, Rockefeller and the Inter American Development Bank created a partnership with the New York Stock Exchange to create a new asset class, Natural Asset Companies (NAC). The NACs would trade eco system services on the stock market, tokenising nature and allowing a level of ownership over the land the NACs own the rights to. This can be land such as National Parks and State Forests (source: Rockefeller Foundation). This was almost achieved but the New York Stock Exchange withdrew its bid to allow it, for now (Source: Greenwire).

It is important to keep an eye on any attempts to put nature on the stock exchange in the future, as it is a way for global corporations to get their hands on everything.

Watch this video to gain a better understanding of how corporations can profit on nature under the guise of conservation, while actually harming developing countries that they use to offset their carbon usage:

We must also keep in mind that in 2015 Australia committed to the United Nations 2030 Agenda and all their Sustainable Development Goals (source: Australian Bureau of Statistics).

The United Nations wants to transform our food systems under Sustainable Development Goal number two, which states "End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.” This sounds benevolent at first glance; however, the United Nations has a partnership with CropLife.

Some of the members of CropLife International are Bayer (Monsanto), BASF, and Syngenta, which are a few of the biggest chemical companies in the world, and they have just made a submission to 'the Senate Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources - Food and Beverage Manufacturing Australia', to introduce their “cultured meat” which is another name for lab-grown meat.

The United Nations makes it clear that they believe traditional agriculture and land use are some of the biggest contributors to "climate change” (source: The United Nations website). Putting our food security in the hands of multi-national corporations, and allowing them to implement their solutions in the form of new technologies and novel foods, could decimate farming and leave us dependent upon corporate monopolies with undue influence over what we eat (or don’t eat).

Do we trust these giant corporations to value people over profit? With such a big influence on our governments, we must be cautious of them.

A good crisis seems to benefit billionaires

The pandemic was a crisis that saw the super-rich boost their share of global wealth. "The World Inequality Report produced by a network of social scientists estimated that in the year 2021, billionaires collectively owned 3.5% of global household wealth, up from slightly above 2% at the start of the pandemic in early 2020 (source: Reuters).

Will the “climate change crisis” offer similar benefits to the wealthy elites?

With the introduction of green bonds in Australia, there are profits to be made for large corporations - thus the opportunity for wealth transfer using nature as a commodity. as discussed above.

Our Common Agenda , a vision put forth by The United Nations, states that they want a declaration of a “climate emergency.” We have all experienced firsthand what happens when governments declare a state of emergency. Human rights are always overridden for “the common good.”

What about OUR input on how our country moves forward?

On September 22-23 2024, the leaders of the world will be attending the “Summit of the Future” where they will be signing some kind of agreement on our behalf (again, without the knowledge or consent of the people they allegedly represent, and likely with little to no media coverage to inform the public).

We recommend emailing your local representatives and MPs with questions about the Summit and what documentation they will be signing. We also recommend attending council meetings and asking questions about managed relocation and how properties will be assessed on "climate risk."

Further information

Behind the Green Mask Series

To watch a video series by Rosa Koire where she explains the Agenda 21 Plan (also now knows as Agenda 2030), which she says seeks to strip us of our sovereignty and rights as free people, declaring our public lands off-limits to humans and ushering us into high-density housing aka smart cities, click here.

Would you like to spread awareness with a flyer?

These flyers feature a link to this article.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Similar Posts from DYK

| | | |

× Read More ×
× Read More ×
× Read More ×
× Read More ×
× Read More ×
× Read More ×
× Read More ×
× Read More ×
× Read More ×
× Read More ×
× Read More ×
× Read More ×

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Newsletter

crossmenu