This is the first part of a two-part article that will expose the truth about Richard Black’s involvement in the global  agenda of Stakeholder Forum. Part one will focus on Stakeholder Forum. Part two will go into detail about how Richard Black has aided their cause, with the full knowledge of his BBC bosses. I will also show how he has been paid by them and will be paid by them to help them achieve their goals at RIO.  This is not to be taken lightly and I ask you to spread this far and wide.

.
As regular readers will know I have been investigating the links between Richard Black and a group called Stakeholder Forum.  I have been quite surprised as to how little this group have been mentioned in the climate skeptic world.  Stakeholder Forum seem to have flown under the radar somewhat. For example, in this post  at WUWT there is only one mention of Stakeholder Forum.  That is one mention in one of more than 100 comments, with no mention of them in the article itself, despite the fact that RIO +20 has their fingerprints all over it….if you look hard enough.

Stakeholder Forum – A Brief History.

Stakeholder Forum was turned into a lobbying powerhouse by Felix Dodds. His bio can be read on Wikipedia, although everything you need to know is contained in the first sentence of the text:

“Felix Dodds is an author, futurist and activist. He has been instrumental in developing new modes of stakeholder engagement with the United Nations, particularly within the field of sustainable development. Mr. Dodds is the Executive Director of Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future. “

Dodds moved away from his activities within the UK Liberal party in the mid-1980′s:

“After serving the NLYL, Dodds published his first book, Into the Twenty-First Century: An Agenda for Political Realignment. His work called for closer cooperation between Green members on the left in British politics. Contributors to the book included: Jonathon Porritt, Jean Lambert MEP, Peter Hain MP, Simon Hughes MP, Michael Meadowcroft MP, Sara Parkin, Petra Kelly Green MP in Germany, Jeremy Seabrook, Peter Tatchell and Hilary Wainwright. In 1988, Dodds co-founded Green Voice, which worked for two years to create a dialogue between Green members on the left of UK politics.”

Once Dodds had seeded himself within the UK’s green-scene, he then moved onto bigger fish:

“Since 1990, Felix Dodds has been active within the United Nations network, originally as Director of the United Nations Environment and Development, UK Committee (UNED-UK). This organization evolved into the UNED-Forum, eventually leading to its successor organization, Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future. These organizations played a critical role in mobilizing support for the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. In the months leading up to the highly publicized meeting, Stakeholder Forum’s Earth Summit web site was used by stakeholders as the primary non-UN online resource.”

You get a sense of what Felix Dodds’ world view is when you read this paragraph describing his manipulation of democracy at the UN, by pressuring for more and more input from unelected stakeholder groups:

“Dodds co-chaired the NGO coalition at the UN CSD from 1997 to 2001, and is credited with proposing to the UN General Assembly in 1996 the introduction of Stakeholder Dialogues at the United Nations. Dodds has played a pivotal role in their development since that time, and is a keen advocate for the involvement of stakeholders in the decision-making process and implementation of global agreements. He has argued that we are in a process of transition from representative democracy – Madison democracy to a participatory democracy – Jeffersonian Democracy. Dodds contends that at present we are in a period of stakeholder democracy, and trying, at various levels within society, to develop the structures, vocabulary and institutions to embed this phase. He firmly believes that such developments will strengthen world democracy.”

So Felix Dodds is not just about saving the animals, climate and resources.  Felix is about changing the global agenda to suit the ideology and bidding of unelected pressure groups. Felix it appears wants nothing short of a new sort of democracy governed by NGO’s and UN bodies created from NGO agendas.   He is doing this through what used to be called “Stakeholder Forum For A Sustainable Future”, but is now simply called “Stakeholder Forum”.

.
The Agenda Benders.

Stakeholder Forum is the primary reason why there will be a RIO+20 “Earth Summit” in June 2012.  The unofficial name of “Earth Summit” is one created and used by Stakeholder Forum.  It is NOT an official UN title.

This is how SF describe their intervention:

“Stakeholder Forum played a critical role in generating support for an Earth Summit in 2012, organising a series formal and informal meetings, multi-stakeholder and governmental workshops to provide a space for discussion and exchange on the possible focus of an Earth Summit. Stakeholder Forum’s original multi-stakeholder workshop on Earth Summit 2012, held in San Sebastian, resulted in the Donostia Declaration which outlined the case for a Summit as well as providing recommendations of focus areas. “

So how exactly did they “play a critical role” in generating support for RIO+20?  You are going to have to keep up here I’m afraid!

.
I think it is important to note first that the original RIO conference set out the UN’s “Agenda 21″, which is basically an  attempt to alter how the world approaches environment issues. It  goes well beyond that, in terms of being the original framework on which Felix Dodds and others are building to push for a change in global governance, Dodds’ “participative democracy” (participative if you happen to be part of an NGO of course).

UNEP  is the UN’s Environment Program. Its mission is:

“To provide leadership and encourage partnership in caring for the environment by inspiring, informing, and enabling nations and people’s to improve their quality of life without compromising that of future generations.”

UNEP, according to Wikipedia covers a swathe of issues:

“Its activities cover a wide range of issues regarding the atmosphere, marine and terrestrial ecosystems, environmental governance and green economy. It has played a significant role in developing international environmental conventions, promoting environmental science and information and illustrating the way those can be implemented in conjunction with policy, working on the development and implementation of policy with national governments, regional institutions in conjunction with environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). UNEP has also been active in funding and implementing environment related development projects.”

UNEP is, thanks to the IPCC, due for an upgrade in terms of its power:

“Following the publication of Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in February 2007, a “Paris Call for Action” read out by French President Jacques Chirac and supported by 46 countries, called for the United Nations Environment Programme to be replaced by a new and more powerful “United Nations Environment Organization (UNEO)”, also called Global Environment Organisation now supported by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, to be modelled on the World Health Organization.”

So you can see, that UNEP is a powerful body whose reach encompasses all the major environmental topics, including climate change. However, it is deemed not powerful enough and a campaign is underway to convert it to a much larger and more powerful body similar to the World Health Organisation (WHO).  Felix had this to say:

“United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has had an amazing forty years helping to create our current environmental legislative framework, as well as acting as the global advocate for environment. Rio+20 outcomes should include upgrading UNEP into a World Environment Organization which brings together all the environmental conventions into a coherent structure.”

So Felix is right behind upgrading UNEP to the WEO and the associated increase in reach and power that would bring.  It would bring, to be clear, reach and power for NGO’s and other un-elected, unaccountable groups. UNEP is influenced through the “Major Groups & Stakeholders” Forum.  Stakeholder Forum directly influences that through helping to organise it, lobbying through informal meetings (as you will read in part two), writing papers and making speeches:

“On 19th February, Executive Director of Stakeholder Forum, Felix Dodds, gave a presentation to a wide range of Major Groups’ representatives on the expectations from Rio+20 and what actions are still required to secure a positive outcome at the Summit, at the UNEP Global Major Groups and Stakeholders Forum.  The presentation also examined the many issues surrounding sustainable development governance and the green economy, including the recommendation of certain policies and changes in approach deemed necessary to ensure progress in these areas is achieved at the Summit.”

UNEP policy is shaped by its Global Environmental Outlook reports.  GEO-4 was the last and GEO-5 will be out before RIO. The “Outreach Group” directly influences that report. You will therefore be unsurprised by now when you read this:

“Stakeholder Forum hosted the last meeting of the Fourth Global Environment Outlook (GEO-4) Outreach Working Group in San Sebastian from 4 to 6 October.”

There is nothing to suggest Felix and co would have less influence if the WEO was implemented, quite the contrary it appears.

.
ICE, ICE Baby….

ICE is a campaign to bring about an “International Court For the Environment”. It states its aims pretty clearly:

“In order to bring accountability to the current system, institutional reform is required. We need to integrate the decentralized environmental governance regime and provide an enforcement mechanism that holds both States and non-state actors to account. We need accountability – We need the International Court for the Environment.”

In simple terms, this is about creating a central court, like the War Crimes tribunal, to pass judgement over, well basically anyone, who has been deemed to have broken the laws that people like Felix Dodds, through the WEO and Agenda 21, have deemed so.  It also says this on their website:

“Through its partnership with the Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future, the ICE Coalition has been able to  publish articles on the news section of the website and to publicise the ICE concept as a direct contribution from  civil society to the 2012 Earth Summit on sustainable development within the  institutional framework for sustainable development.”

So ICE is directly working with Stakeholder Forum with the intent of creating a global environmental justice system. Felix Dodds wants a change in global democracy, a change in how the world acts and punishment for anyone who dares to deviate from his vision.

.
Stakeholder Forum is pushing for an increase in global environmental judiciary power through ICE.  It is doing this through a decade long campaign to get a RIO+20 conference and then push the agenda. It is doing this through its SDG2012 programme:

“SDG2012 is Stakeholder Forum’s programme on Sustainable Development Governance (SDG) towards Rio+20.”

It may be a little unimaginitive of me, but quoting from the people themselves is the easiest way of showing just how far down the rabbit hole we are going here:

“Achim Steiner, director of UNEP, said that a WEO could be modelled on the WTO which has its own dispute resolution mechanisms. A WEO might be granted jurisdiction to refer cases to an ICE and indeed it might be provided that complaints intended to be referred to the ICE should first be referred to the WEO for consideration and investigation.”

.
“The UNEP and Stakeholder Forum organised a conference on Sunday 6th March 2011 in New York entitled: “IEG, Sustainable Development Governance and Rio+20: A Stakeholder Consultation”.”

.
“The ICE Coalition attended and made a presentation at the COP 15 at Copenhagen in December 2009 and sent some of its members as observers to the 2010 Bonn talks and Tianjin conference in order to follow the evolution of the negotiations. The ICE Coalition went to Cancun and participated in the COP 16. The Coalition had an exhibit space, participated in a side event and gave a presentation in a private ministerial event. The Coalition aims to deploy its campaign for the COP 17 which will take place in Durban in December 2011.”

In summary, Felix Dodds’ Stakeholder Forum are part of ICE and are pushing for global environmental governance.  They are advising, influencing, organising for and working with UNEP.  Stakeholder Forum also directly influences the UN CSD. It was instrumental in the agreement to hold a RIO+20 conference:

“Stakeholder Forum hosted a two-day multi-stakeholder conference on Earth Summit 2012 in October 2009 in Brussels. It was the first major event to be held in Europe to discuss a possible Rio+20 conference in 2012….In December the UN General Assembly agreed to the next Earth Summit in 2012″ – Stakeholder Forum Annual Report 2009.

RIO+20 will attempt to make decisions on Global environmental governance through establishing ICE and either a more powerful UNEP or a fully-fledged WEO, which will enforce Agenda 21. It will discuss a “Global Green New Deal” to try to replace the current financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF. Stakeholder Forum has discussed a wealth redistribution framework through meetings with the New Economics Forum.

All pushed for, and shaped by Felix Dodds and Stakeholder forum. They organised the NGO and Government Workshops, lobbying training,  meetings, radio and flyers – the whole kit and kaboodle to ensure that RIO happens and that its agenda and outcome is shaped by them.

Concerning?

It should be – Stakeholder Forum are basically attempting to shape an environmental Coup D’etat at RIO+20.

From 4-15th May 2009, the UN held CSD17 (Commission on Sustainable Development) in New York. We know Richard Black was there for the BBC, because we know this:

“Together with the BBC World Service Trust
and UN Radio, Stakeholder Forum produced a series
of radio programmes and podcasts at this year’s UN
Commission on Sustainable Development in New York
(4th – 15th May). The productions brought together
a diverse range of civil society representatives,
governments, issue experts and practitioners to discuss
some of the key issues under negotiation during the
session including drought, desertification, agriculture,
land and Africa.
The project was manage the BBC Environment
Correspondent – Richard Black, and four trainee
journalists from Bulgaria, Kenya, India and Peru with
support from two NYU students and Michael Strauss of
Earth Media.
The team produced one and a half hour programmes
daily”

This is taken directly from Stakeholder Forum’s 2009 Annual Report.  This report also states:

“The BBC continued to approach Stakeholder Forum for
articles for the Green Room their web-based discussion
space. Felix Dodds with Michael Strauss wrote for the
BBC Green Room an article on Climate Change and
Father Xmas. During the CSD Stakeholder Forum was
mentioned twice on Richard Blacks blog which is copied
widely on other organizations web sites.”

So here we can see that the BBC approached Felix Dodds to write his piece to brainwash the kids with.  We can also see that Richard Black was happy to mention Stakeholder Forum, which is hardly surprising considering he had been working with them every single day of CSD17 mentoring the people making a radio show.

.

Next we have another mention of Mr Black:

“In addition to our radio work, the team hosted a two-hour
training session for Major Groups and stakeholders
on how to work with the media and communicate
sustainable development. The session was chaired by
Emily Benson and heard from Richard Black, Michael
Strauss and Jean Victor Nkolo. An estimated 30 people
attended and the feedback we received was positive.”

Hang on, so you ran your lobbying workshop AT a global conference AND it included Richard Black?  So the workshop Richard presented at in 2010 was not unique?  He did it in 2009 as well. So on at least two occasions we have a BBC journalist presenting to advocate groups on how to massage the media to your advantage.

Personally I’m not sure what he would have said other than “just email me your story I can print any old crap as long as it mentions imminent climate or ecological collapse”.

But, seriously, we now know Richard was covering the CSD17 for the BBC and was also working with Stakeholder Forum both in a joint venture AND in a lobbying workshop. I refer you again to the BBC Royal Charter Agreement:

“The BBC must do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output.”

BBC Royal Charter Agreement 2006.

Finished with Richard Black and Stakeholder Forum? Not by a long shot.  This is just the beginning.  Next up is the big one.

Last year, on 28th January, Richard Black posted a story titled “Arctic canary looking sicker than ever”.  In this piece, he raved on about how the winter:

“Arctic sea ice area is heading for a record winter low this season”

“The winter maxima are showing a similar trend. And the latest plot from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center shows that another record low, this time for the smallest winter maximum, could be on its way”

“Already, a fair proportion – I won’t claim to know the exact figure, but I’d estimate it’s over 90% – of Arctic researchers believe that for the region as a whole, the canary is already toppling off its perch.”

.

Now compare that to this years annual “oh my god the Arctic ice will be gone and we’re all gonna die” piece.

In both of the pieces we see PIOMAS data (where the hell is the ICESAT data?).  We also have a general theme of doom and gloom, this year’s including information about how some absolute whacko wants to spray mist into the air with god only knows what consequences. However, you will notice how he switches the pea under the cup by talking about SUMMER ice minimum in this years piece.

However, the elephant in the room, or rather not in the room this year is the NSIDC plot.  Last year it took centre stage, with the attached message of certain doom.

This year, Richard had not included a picture of the NSIDC plot.

Why do you think that is?

Someone pass me a gun please.  We need to get that pesky bird of it’s perch.

Richard has been let of the leash in the build-up to Wednesday’s budget it appears.  I have snipped the relevant pieces from each story to give you an overview of their content.

.

Just 2% believe coalition is ‘greenest government’, survey suggests

“The poll, commissioned by Greenpeace and the RSPB from YouGov, shows that 53% of the UK electorate believes the government is about average on green issues, while 10% say it is greener than average.”

.

Has the ‘greenest government ever’ gassed itself?

“A new dash for gas will leave UK citizens at the mercy of rising and volatile fossil fuel prices,” said Keith Allott of WWF.

“It’s staggering that the Treasury is bending over backwards to support a fuel that is to blame for 80% of the recent hike in energy bills.”

.

There you go.  Everything you need to know about the content of the propaganda without wasting precious moments of your life reading it.

Thanks to Bishop Hill for putting the word out about this little blog.

One thing a few people have said in the comments over there is that they feel I am targeting Richard Black personally.

So, let me state my position on this.

I have no ill feeling towards Richard Black as a person.  Unlike some of the nutty elements of the people who think the planet it going to burn next week, I am not on a personal vendetta, nor am I harassing him etc.

Richard Black represents the BBC’s position on AGW.  He is responsible for most of their output on the subject and he covers all major events for them.  Therefore, he is in a unique and powerful position within a public broadcaster.  Ultimately accountable to me – one of the millions who pay his wage through our license fee.  I therefore demand of the BBC that their journalism and people follow the charter laid out in 2006, especially around balance and impartiality.

Even someone who is completely sold on the runaway global warming hypothesis, if they have any sort of open mind, knows that the BBC’s coverage does lack balance.  No coverage of “Gleickgate” for example.  If this had happened in any other field of science the BBC would have been, quite rightly, all over it.  The fact they were not shows that they are willing to basically condone and cover up wrongdoing. This obviously contradicts their obligation under the Royal Charter.

So that is the purpose of Blackswhitewash.com.  To watch and investigate the BBC environmental coverage and to hold it and it’s journalists to account.

The fact a BBC journalist has, as I will show in my next post, influenced the UN directly both into holding RIO+20 and shaping the agenda for that conference, is in complete contradiction to the stated aims of the Royal Charter.  Black’s activities make Jeremy Bowen’s championing of the Palestinians seem irrelevant by comparison.

Today on BBC’s “Newswatch” show, Richard Ayre of the BBC Trust stated that the trust took issues relating to impartiality and bias in the BBC very seriously and that they would investigate and punish where these were found.  Richard Black, evidently condoned by David Shukman, blatantly shows bias in an issue where there is still debate and uncertainty, should you have an open mind enough to read about that uncertainty. As the BBC and the Trust are failing to act on my behalf, I am totally within my rights to find the truth myself and highlight it.

Lastly I would like to state that nothing I have written or am about to write is stolen, been sent to me,  or otherwise been illegally obtained.  It is all out there on the internet.  Searchable, visible and public to anyone who has the willpower to use Google to its full potential to find it.  All I am doing is putting the pieces together to get the truth on how a BBC journalist is ALLOWED to behave.

It appears that my last post has not gone un-noticed in the ecoloon camp:

http://uk.oneworld.net/guides/planet_under_pressure_notes_15th_march

“Attending a specialist conference should be a great way for scientists to escape the tedious attacks on the profession by climate change sceptics. It’s conceivable that Planet Under Pressure 2012 may prove a disappointment on this score.

Richard Black

The conference has drawn attention to itself by hiring the BBC Environment Correspondent, Richard Black, as a panel discussion moderator. Black is a hate figure for the sceptics who accuse him of compromising BBC principles of impartiality in his reporting on climate change.

His movements are tracked by the organised underworld of sceptic bloggers – if Richard Black shows up at your event, you’re tainted by association.

So far, the organisers of Planet Under Pressure 2012 have escaped censure. In yesterday’s outpourings they even enjoyed a little faint praise:

they have formed a board of patrons, who include Sir John Beddington, Lord Turner and Sir Robert Watson, three men who feed heavily into UK enironmental (sic) policy thinking. So this is top table stuff, not some grubby little ecoloon group “

First, let me assure Mr Bill Gunyon that in no way whatsoever was the sentence above praise. I would also like to thank him for confirming that Richard has been HIRED.  Just to independently confirm that Mr Black is creaming cash left right and centre from his activities.

Secondly,  his post is titled “Planet Under Pressure Conference Notes: 15th March”.  The thing is, the conference doesn’t start until the 25th March.  He must be pretty lonely there…..

Thirdly, I am not finished with Richard Black or Stakeholder Forum.  In fact the surface is not even scratched properly yet.

I had a little peek at who “Bill Gunyon” is. One thing that I found which made me chuckle was this:

http://www.winacc.org.uk/carbon-footprints/2012/01/08/billgunyon

It’s his carbon footprint and some little snippets.

He states ” car mileage down to 4500″.  OOOh.  Well, Bill, my car mileage annually is half that.  And I haven’t flown in three years either.  So does that make me better for the planet than…well you actually Bill.

But, to his credit, Bill has ambitions in 2012.

“might dispose of car altogether”.

Very noble, but that does mean he will have to rely on trains or planes to travel further than his local sweetshop. domestic flights *must* be out, otherwise Bill would simply be a giant hypocrite, so trains it is then Bill.

Ah,b ut what’s this underneath his targets for 2012.

“Any other comments”

“high train fares remain major disincentive”

Ah.  Oh well, we can’t ditch everything to save the planet can we Bill.

Enjoy your car in 2012.

During my research of Richard Black’s articles, movements and appearances one name kept popping up: Stakeholder Forum.

So who are “Stakeholder Forum”?

From their website:

“Stakeholder Forum is an international organisation working to advance sustainable development and promote stakeholder democracy at a global level. “

Stakeholder Forum, just in case you thought they were just another tinpot advocacy group formed from another advocacy group all backed by eco-NGO’s in an endless, untraceable pyramid scheme, have, in their own words:

“Stakeholder Forum has played a critical role in advocating for an Earth Summit in 2012, which has now been approved by the UN General Assembly. Stakeholder Forum will continue to play a key co-ordinating role in the run-up to this crucial policy event.“

In other words, they are directly responsible for the upcoming eco-feeding frenzy Rio+20.

“Stakeholder Forum played a critical role in generating support for an Earth Summit in 2012, organising a series formal and informal meetings, multi-stakeholder and governmental workshops to provide a space for discussion and exchange on the possible focus of an Earth Summit. Stakeholder Forum’s original multi-stakeholder workshop on Earth Summit 2012, held in San Sebastian, resulted in the Donostia Declaration which outlined the case for a Summit as well as providing recommendations of focus areas. “

Stakeholder Forum  has pushed until the UN basically gave in and gave them Rio+20.   Proof of their hand in this is in Stakeholder Forum setting up the website http://www.earthsummit2012.org/.  It gives the impression that it’s their own summit, however it is actually all referring to the UN RIO+20 summit.  Nowhere on the UN site does it mention “Earth Summit”. Earth Summit is purely a marketing term to aid Stakeholder Forum’s marketing push on behalf of their sponsors who, you will be unsurprised to read, include  WWF and Greenpeace.

So Stakeholder Forum is a front for the ecoloons, you know those front’s they claim the global warming “deniers” are all about. I have no problem with people discussing the best ways to manage the planets resources at international level, but I do have a problem when that agenda is being pushed by fronts for the powerhouse NGO’s who want to change the world in their image.

.

The Earth Debates.

Stakeholder Forum have organised a series of live debates to be held at the Natural History Museum (you see how they do that? Hold it somewhere that adds authority, make the sheeple go “ooh the natural history museum are behind this”).  Titled “The Earth Debates” to give them a due sense of authority and scope, they are a series of four debates that will also be streamed live over the internet.

Now you can probably guess where I am going with this, if you have read my earlier posts “Richard Black International Man Of Mystery”.

The four debates are being chaired by…Richard Black.

.

Peas In A Pod.

Stakeholder Forum (not much of a forum really, NGO’s throw cash at them, they push to get the message out and acted on), is running events leading up to RIO+20 to keep the pressure up to lead Governments in the direction their sponsers wish.  It really is quite clever. You push to get a conference then you push the agenda (by influencing the zero draft of outcome document, as covered by Richard Black). One of the events they are running is Planet Under Pressure 2012. To give some weight to this conference, they have formed a board of patrons, who include Sir John Beddington, Lord Turner and Sir Robert Watson, three men who feed heavily into UK enironmental policy thinking. So this is top table stuff, not some grubby little ecoloon group.

One of the listed speakers and panelists is….my god can you bear the suspense…..Richard Black. Within a just a few weeks Richard is involved in two events being organised by Stakeholder Forum, both of which are attempts to influence the policy makers at RIO+20. Looks like Stakeholder Forum like Richard doesn’t it.

Well, it appears the BBC likes them as well.  Stakeholder Forum co-produced a series of broadcasts with the BBC World Service Trust:

“In partnership with the BBC World Service Trust and UN Radio, Stakeholder Forum pioneered a new media/capacity building project whereby a team of journalists from developing countries were supported to attend the UN Commission on Sustainable Development. Over the two week Commission they produced over 30 hours of high-quality radio programmes on all aspects of agriculture, land, drought and desertification.“

And, drum roll please, guess who was involved in that…

“Working in close collaboration with the BBC World Service Trust, Stakeholder Forum identified a team of journalists from developing countries to attend the UN Commission on Sustainable Development-16 in New York (2009). Mentored by the BBC Environment Correspondent, Richard Black, the team were provided with an intensive training on all aspects of radio production and the policy issues under discussion at the CSD-16 including water, agriculture, land, and rural development.”

.

Beyond JournoDome.

This is something that always sticks in my mind. Unfortunately is appears to be utterly irrelevant to the people it should apply to:

“The BBC must do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output.”

BBC Royal Charter Agreement 2006.

This would suggest to me that a BBC journalist should not get too close to a subject, so close that they end up as one of the natives?  Especially not in a formal manner by helping unelected groups who wish to influence world policy on climate issues?

So if someone, say Stakeholder Forum just for a laugh, was holding a training day whose outline was:

“Is your organisation struggling to make its voice heard in intergovernmental meetings?  Do you need to understand how the UN decision-making process works? Do you know how to draft text amendments or generate an effective written submission to an international meeting?“

is that the sort of thing you would want a BBC journalist involved in? No, me neither.

However, and yes I know that you have already guessed, it does not appear the BBC or Richard Black have such morality concerns.

“How To Lobby” – Based on 25 years of experience of lobbying at intergovernmental meetings, Stakeholder Forum has designed a one-day training course that will provide you with all of the tools, the knowledge and the tricks-of-the-trade for ensuring that you and your organisation can more effectively lobby decision-makers at the international level.

Speakers included…..Richard Black.

A training day, set-up by an advocacy group to push Governments in the direction they want them to go, helped by a BBC journalist.  Richard Black no doubt shared all the tips and tricks he had picked up from “covering”  the global eco events on his BBC wage, you know the one’s I outlined here that he attended and participated in.

Specifically, Richard discussed the role of the media:

The Role of media
- Richard Black, BBC
Learn how to effectively work to gain media coverage of your issues by mainstream news
media.

Understand logistics and strategies for:
- Approaching and communicating with journalists
- Communicating through and with local and national media
- Accessing international media at
- Organizing press conferences
- Setting broader communications strategies

So Richard Black was training people with a single minded world view on how to approach and influence the media.  Sharing those “tricks of the trade” that will help them to influence journalists.

In part two I will go into more detail about Richard’s relationship with Stakeholder Forum.