Physical Commons

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Physical Commons differ significantly form the Information Commons that we are in the process of creating, so this entry focuses on material related to such physical commons.

Managing Common Pool Resources

These are the design principles that Elinor Ostrom reported finding in groups that managed common pool resources without either underprovisioning or overconsuming them.


From: http://www.cooperationcommons.com/Documents/EntryView?id=30


o Group boundaries are clearly defined.

o Rules governing the use of collective goods are well matched to local needs and conditions.

o Most individuals affected by these rules can participate in modifying the rules.

o The rights of community members to devise their own rules is respected by external authorities.

o A system for monitoring member's behavior exists; the community members themselves undertake this monitoring.

o A graduated system of sanctions is used.

o Community members have access to low-cost conflict resolution mechanisms.

o For CPRs that are parts of larger systems: appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises.


A Defense of the Environmental Commons

Well-written plea for the importance of the 'environmental' commons.

"The environment isn't just about nature anymore. It has become a metaphor for a battle against market — and sometimes governmental — encroachment that extends to virtually every corner of our society. Everything is up for grabs. Everything is for sale. Politicians and the media are essentially oblivious, just as they were oblivious to the threats to the environment before Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, about the dangers of the pesticide DDT. There isn't even a word for this encroachment and loss, except for the tendentious euphemism "growth."

It is significant, then, that an old term is reappearing to describe what is being threatened. It is "the commons," the realm of life that is distinct from both the market and the state and is the shared heritage of us all. Vandana Shiva, an Indian physicist and environmental activist, writes about the commons of water and seeds. Lawrence Lessig, an author and lawyer, describes the innovation commons of the Internet and the public domain of knowledge. Others are talking about the atmospheric commons, the commons of public squares, and the commons of quiet.

People don't generally connect seeds and bytes, aquifers and silence. But the concept of the commons shows them to be aspects of the same thing, with political, legal, and environmental implications that could be far-reaching.

It is not whether there will be more government or less, but whether the market will be able to expropriate everything. In an "ownership" society, what happens to the realms that belong to all of us together, as opposed to each of us apart? If the atmosphere, say, is a commons, then we start to see that polluters are trespassing on something that is ours, and that we hold in trust for future generations. The same goes for the gene pool, cyberspace, the broadcast spectrum, the world's water, and the still of the night. If such things are commons, then we have rights regarding them — common property rights. And that changes everything."

The preindustrial commons provided livelihood and material sustenance, and in the developing world, it still plays that role….. But increasingly the commons today meets a different kind of need: refuge from the market and its frenzied pace. It provides such things as open space, access to nature, the conviviality of public squares…. It produces by not producing in the narrow economic sense. Each new step of market encroachment has increased the need for counter-production of this kind – for quiet instead of noise, for open space instead of development, for seed banks instead of genetically modified organisms." (http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200507/commongood.asp)


Commons-based economics

Towards a Commons-based economics, at http://onthecommons.org/node/694

Peter Barnes on the need to develop a economics which takes into account `negative externalities' and bases itself on the protection of common resources which have to be handed out to the next generations.

"There's a reason for double-entry accounting: it gives a good picture of reality. If your accountant recorded only sales revenue and not expenses, he'd give a very distorted picture of your situation, and you'd fire him for being half-brained.Strange as it seems, mainstream economists are like that half-brained accountant. They count America's sales (a.k.a. GDP), but not our expenses (the negative ex­ternalities of those sales). They keep track of private income and wealth, but not common wealth or illth. As a result, they miss at least half the story. It's time for a new breed of economists to keep a fuller set of books and tell a larger economic story. These economists would look at the health of the commons (the balance sheet) and the trade between the commons and the market (the income statements). They'd address such questions as: if the market does this or that, what are the effects on the commons? Who pays for illth, damagers or damagees? How might that be reversed? How can scarce common resources -- eco­systems, time, peace of mind -- be conserved, and their `rents' captured and recycled? Ultimately, their job would be to make the economic case for the primacy, if not the divinity, of the com­mons

Mainstream economists have little interest in this work. They'll no doubt complain that commons-side economists can't be as quantitatively precise as they are. This is true, but so what? Right now, mainstream economists value the commons at zero. This is quantitatively precise, but quite wrong. Any imprecise numbers derived by commons-side economists would be a big step forward.

Commons-side economics can also serve as an antidote to supply-side economics, which has dominated public policy since the 1980s. The premise of supply-side economics is that, by reducing taxes on the suppliers of capital, production will be stimulated, GDP will rise and income will trickle down to non-owners of capital. Some supply-siders also argue that the growth stimulated by supply-side tax cuts will add to, rather than detract from, government revenue. George Bush the elder once called this "voodoo economics." A more up-to-date appellation would be "faith-based economics." Nevertheless, the doctrine prevails. Supply-siders' basic assumption is: what's good for the owners of capital is good for everyone. They presume private capital is scarce and/or indolent and must therefore be lured into action with ever-greater privileges and rewards. They further assume that most, if not all, wealth comes from profit-maximizing, and therefore any spending by government, or any money paid to commoners for anything other than their labor, is not only money misspent, but a drag on the bounty-giving of profit-seekers.

Commons-side economists, by contrast, would see the commons not just as a needed boundary on the market, but as a supply-side of a different sort. Their premise would be: what's good for everyone, including future generations, is good for the owners of capital. They'd understand the wealth that lies in the commons and describe the many ways that investing in the commons enriches more humans more efficiently than does relying on corporations."


When should a resource be managed as a commons?

When should a resource be managed as a commons, when as private property

URL = http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=704463

"In this article, Professor Frischmann combines a number of current debates across many disciplinary lines, all of which examine from different perspectives whether certain resources should be managed through a regime of private property or through a regime of open access. Frischmann develops and applies a theory that demonstrates there are strong economic arguments for managing and sustaining openly accessible infrastructure. The approach he takes differs from conventional analyses in that he focuses extensively on demand-side considerations and fully explores how infrastructure resources generate value for consumers and society. As a result, the theory brings into focus the social value of common infrastructure, and strongly suggests that the benefits of open access (costs of restricted access) are significantly greater than reflected in current debates. Frischmann's infrastructure theory ultimately ties together different strands of legal and economic thought pertaining to natural resources such as lakes, traditional infrastructure such as road systems, what antitrust theorists describe as essential facilities, basic scientific research, and the Internet. His theory has significant potential to reframe a number of important debates within intellectual property, cyberlaw, telecommunications, and many other areas."


The Ten Laws of the Commons of the Natural World

Proposed by Jamie Love at http://onthecommons.org/node/845:

"Ten Tenets: the Law of the Commons of the Natural World

1) The commons shall be passed on to future generations unimpaired. E.g., Montana Constitution: Article ix: environment and natural resources National Park Service Organic Act, 16 U.S.C.1.

2) All commoners have equal access to the commons and use by commoners will be allocated without discrimination. E.g., Alaska Permanent Fund.

3) Government’s key responsibility is to serve as a trustee of the commons. E.g., Lake Michigan Federation v. Army Corps of Engineers, 742 F. 2d 441 (N.D. Ill. 1990), Source: Public trust doctrine.

4) The commons do not belong to the state but belong to commoners, the public. E.g., Public Trust Doctrine.

5) Some commons are the common heritage of all humans and other living beings. Common heritage establishes the right of commoners to those places and goods in perpetuity. This right may not be alienated. The Common Heritage law is a limit on one government’s sovereignty to claim economic jurisdiction and exclude some commoners from their share. E.g., the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, article 136 and 137.

6) The precautionary principle is the most useful tool for protecting the commons for this and future generations. E.g., San Francisco precautionary principle ordinance.

7) Eminent domain is the legal process for moving private property into the commons and shall be used exclusively for that purpose. Source: Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

8) Infrastructure necessary for humans and other beings to be fully biological and social creatures will reside within the domain of the commons. The positive benefits (externalities) of the commons shall accrue to all commoners. E.g., Alaska Permanent Fund.

9) Because the commons are the foundation of the economy, commerce and private property shall not externalize damage or costs onto the commons. E.g., Florida Polluter Pay Constitutional Provision.

10) Damage to or loss of the commons shall be compensated to all commoners. E.g., Alaska Permanent Fund." (http://onthecommons.org/node/845)


Continuing Enclosures of the Traditional Commons

"Let me start with an area that is seemingly unrelated to this discussion, so you know where I am coming from: In CAPRi we work mostly with the "nature" commons, that is communal grazing areas, forest, irrigation systems, fishponds etc., and these can be commons all year round or conditional (seasonal, as a last resort in times of stress, etc.). Most of these systems include both the local elites and the more marginalized groups of society (defined by wealth, social status, gender, age, class) and these different groups depend on each other (and the differing roles they play) for the whole system to function.

However, in many areas resources that are managed collectively are being privatized (i.e. individualized). People are presented with the opportunity to opt out of the commons - the state (or a development project) offering them an alternative way of effectively managing "their" land on their own.

While some (in many cases the local elites) benefit very much from individualization, others, who lack resources or capabilities to defend themselves and/ or seize privatization as an opportunity lose out. Usually those losers are among the marginalized groups mentioned above. In addition,in many cases only the productive pieces of land are privatized, and the waste remains as commons, not able to produce enough anymore.

Still, these marginalized groups continue to depend on functioning common property systems for their survival. The commons provide much of their income and food, and the social bonds that are associated with the commons, are a social saftey net of sorts. Privatizing the commons means they are stripped off the basis for living, because they are not capable of maintaining this management system alone (actually 2 colleagues of mine are writing a paper about this talking about "cutting the web of interests")." (Stephan Dohrn in the Cooperation Commons mailing list)


More Information

Info on the still existing common lands of England and Wales, at http://www.oss.org.uk/commons/commons.htm