P2P Foundation:Sandbox: Difference between revisions

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
In the sandbox you can '''play''' with ''wiki syntax'' and more.
In the sandbox you can '''play''' with ''wiki syntax'' and more.


Michael Hardt, Remi Nilsen
We have abundant reminders, both during the 2008
We need to broaden our political possibilities
biennial conference and in the news that many local
Interview with Michael Hardt
commons are under threat. I realize that this is nothing
 
new—we’ve had examples of almost 500 years of
"We need alternatives to the thought that our only options are either
enclosures of one type or another, in this country alone.
private or public ownership", said Michael Hardt when he presented his
But the processes are accelerating as dramatically higher
and Antonio Negri's forthcoming book Common Wealth at the European
food and fuel prices create increased demand for land to
Social Forum in Malmö in September. The book elaborates on the
produce both food and agrofuels. The price of rice, for
theories set out in Empireand Multitude, focusing on the common as an
example, has doubled in the last five months, and many
alternative to capitalism and socialism.
other key food prices have been increasing rapidly.
Remi Nilsen: You and Antonio Negri's upcoming book will be called
While enclosures of the commons may lead to intensification
Common Wealth.
of production of these commodities, we also need
 
to ask at what cost, and to whom? In many cases it is
Michael Hardt: Yes, we just turned in the manuscript to the editors,
the very poorest people who lose out, and many subsistence,
so it will still be a long time before it comes out.
environmental, and even spiritual values that are
 
hard to quantify and price are lost.
One way it functions with us, with these books, is that when we finish
It isn’t just at the local level: we also have growing
a book, we start to criticize it. So when we finished Empire we were
evidence of global commons under threat. The IASC
feeling that although the concept of multitude was central to us and
has been addressing global commons issues since at least
to the book, we hadn't developed it enough or in the way we wanted.
1996, but it is good that it is a focal point of this conference.
Hence the next book was about "the multitude". So after that book we
The atmospheric commons is one of the most
felt that the notion of the common was central, but not developed
critical examples, going beyond loss of air quality to
enough.
wholesale climate change. The collapse of ocean fisheries
 
also calls for urgent attention, as does the loss of
It is not that our books are about just one thing – they end up being
genetic resources. The loss of biodiversity in terms of
about many things – but the starting point was "the common", the
wild species of flora and fauna does receive some
common wealth. Too often are we able to see the world only in terms of
attention, but loss of agrobiodiversity is also a matter for
private and public property. Marx says at a certain point in the 1844-
serious concern, as the local landraces and “orphan
manuscripts: "Private property has made us stupid." And it has partly
crops” like leafy vegetables, roots, tubers, or medicinal
made us stupid in that we can't recognize the common. We tend to think
plants are lost. This is part of our common human
that not just private property but also public property has made us
heritage, and can have serious repercussions for the
stupid in that we are only able to think that the alternative is
resilience of world food systems.
either private or public ownership. Yet much of the world is still
Let’s look for a minute at some of the challenges posed
common. There's a lot of discourse about that now, but the notion
by the “new commons”. Our name change and the
seems to be used in its pre-modern meaning: the commons, common land,
expansion of our mission to include these other types of
common woods, etc. But we're more interested in universal production:
commons has increased concern with these issues, but
ideas, images, social relations... things it's hard to privatize.
also to furthered opportunities to learn across resources.
Which is what the multitude has in common, the shared faculties like
Again, in both the news and the papers of this conference
language, which can't be privatized...
we have examples of: enclosure (and expansion) of
 
urban parks, gardens, and neighborhood improvements;
Or even when they are privatized, it destroys their productivity. If a
ICT (information communications technology)-related
language were a private property it wouldn't be communicative, but in
commons such as bandwidth for internet and cell phones,
the same way if it is regulated by the state it looses its capacity
or the internet itself; debates over intellectual property
for innovation.
rights over music, crafts, books or text on the internet,
 
and even genetic resources.
Language is a good example because it is so quickly destroyed by
Information and knowledge open up whole new realms
either private or public property. Another, minor but significant,
for exploration of the commons. In April this year I
example is the Internet, code, and information. The open source
attended an international conference on agricultural
movement has said for a long time: The period of open access to code
innovation systems. People at this meeting are dealing
and information was the period of great creativity and expansion of
with issues like how to foster and spread innovation—
Internet technologies and development. As things have been privatized
whether by farmers, scientists, businesses, or partnerships
– both information and code – creativity has been blocked. And
of these. Increasingly, there are group-based approaches
generally what Negri and I try to understand with the notion of the
to not only extension information systems, but also
biopolitical, or what we sometimes awkwardly call immaterial
participatory plant breeding or other types of knowledge
production, is precisely this: ideas, information and code, but also
generation and application. I was struck by how relevant
images, notions, and social relations. One of the hypotheses we try to
the analyses of the commons are for addressing the
develop is that this mode of production is becoming dominant today, in
problems with which they are grappling, and when I
the same or similar way that industrial production was in an earlier
mentioned some of what we have found about managing
era. All of those products are tendentially common. It is not that you
commons, I got a lot of requests to point them to this
can't privatize information or knowledge, that happens all the time,
literature, and grateful responses saying how useful this is.
but that a) they are difficult to privatize or make public because
The list goes on, but let me now turn to what I mean by a
they are infinitely reproducible, and b) they loose their productive
Strategy for the Commons.
capacity when they are privatized.
A Strategy for the Commons
 
Confronted with these challenges, we can either sit back
So in the same way we think of the common as a different way of
and bemoan the “tragedy of the commons,” or we can
thinking private and public property, we want to try to envision an
bemoan the loss of the commons, whether local or global,
institution of the common. The common as a social and political form
“old”, or “new”, or we can try to do something about it.
that constitutes an alternative to thinking either capitalism or
But what?
socialism (capitalism as an expression of private property and
Now I am not going to suggest any kinds of panaceas,
socialism as an expression of public property) which would make the
simple solutions, and I don’t mean to imply that any of
common the basis of a commun-ism: the institution of the common as a
these apply everywhere. But I do suggest that elements
social institution.
of this Strategy for the Commons include:
 
Continue the learning
So the upcoming book continues the analysis that we have been doing
Share our knowledge
for a while now, of trying to understand how production has changed. I
Put it to use
think in traditional terms you would call it an analysis of class
As IASC and as individual members we will each play
composition: What is it people do at work? What is work today? How is
different roles in this, but let us look at the components of
it organized and structured?
each of these elements, and how they interconnect.
 
Continue the learning: across disciplines, resources and
RN:The upcoming book will then present further examination of Marx's
countries. It is quite appropriate that our new acronym
notion of the "general intellect" from Grundrisse, but at the same
spells out “I ASK.” Study both successes and failures.
time it sounds like there is a change involved in the turn towards
Look for underlying principles as well as local specificities.
"the common" rather then "the multitude" and its "relationship of
Think about what lessons will apply to the next
singularities"?
situation, especially to the “new commons.”
 
I don’t see this learning as being in conflict with action.
MH:I do think there are in some ways new directions in each book, but
As an applied researcher myself, I firmly believe that
I do feel like it is a trilogy. It has been a fifteen year long
sound theory and research methods are critical for getting
process which has resulted in three books, and in each book we try to
a better understanding of what is going on as a basis for
address the questions as the are posed, rather than pursuing some
policies and practice. But I’ve also found that many of
radical departure.
the best theoretical insights (and many methodological
 
innovations) come from engaging with people in the field,
Part of the challenge is to recognize how multiplicity and the common
which forces us to confront the limitations of our pared
are not only compatible, but also mutually necessary, rather than
down conceptual models.
being conflictive. Because normally one thinks of unity and difference
That’s also often the most fun part. Last year, right at
as being alternatives; you either have one or the other. Whereas we
this time, I was back in Sananeri, the irrigation tank in
think that commonality and multiplicity are philosophically
India where I began my study of the commons, 25
complementary.
years before (which, in turn, was right near my home
 
town where I grew up). It reminded me of how
RN: When you say that this immaterial mode of production is becoming
exciting that feeling of discovery was. I had been
more dominant than the industrial, do you see a conflict between this
hearing about the famous farmer managed irrigation
mode of production and the existing one, making the conflict
systems in Bali and Nepal, but was told they didn’t
predominantly with the existing capitalist mode of production?
exist in India, and this tank was government managed,
 
but I was curious about how the tanks operated, so I
MH: I do see it that way. Public and private property go hand in hand,
did some interviews before starting on what was to be
capital always need the state as its mechanism. And what we call
the “real” topic of my masters’ thesis. Imagine that
capitalist and socialist states have been different mixtures of
feeling of discovering a very active local association
private and public property. From this perspective, the communality
managing the tank, and then, as I dug deeper, to find
between the two looks much closer.
out that what I had been taught about the core of
 
irrigation association activities was incomplete, because
Maybe you were worried that I was downgrading the conflict with
it had focused only on the internal activities, and not the
capital by posing it that way... But I think our political alternative
efforts the group made to acquire water or liase with
ha been impoverished when the only solution we can think of is to make
(lobby) the state.
it public property.
But as exciting as that learning can be, it can’t end
 
there. We need to: Share our knowledge, among our
Let me give a slightly more concrete example. The best analysis we
membership, but also more broadly. The Commons
have of neoliberalism shares – beyond their analysis of the evils of
Digest and the International Journal of the Commons
privatization – the assumption that it is necessary to impose state
are good tools for this. I realize that it’s ironic that the
solutions, i.e. either Keynesian or socialist models. I was thinking
IASC, with so many scholars of the commons who
of the ones I admire the most, which are Naomi Klein's The Shock
know all about free rider problems, make our materials
Doctrine and David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism. None of
available as open access, but the reason is that we
them explicitly say what the alternative is, and I think any critique
believe it is essential to share our knowledge on these
of neoliberalism should reflect on what alternatives we have, on what
issues so that we can build on each other’s work and
would be different from neoliberalism. Both of them seem to assume
put it to use for addressing the problems and seizing the
that some form of state regulation and control is the alternative. But
opportunities that the commons present. This knowledge
I think we need other alternatives because that one doesn't thrill me.
is too precious to hoard.
There must be something better, and I don't mean this in an absolutist
We also need other ways to share this knowledge
way à la "if we could abolish the state tomorrow... ". We need to
outside our Association. I ask each of you to look for
broaden our political possibilities.
opportunities to disseminate an understanding of the
 
commons. Each of you is a member of other communities
RN: In both Empire and Multitude you criticize the notion of
of practice, and can serve as a bridge, a transmission
sovereignty. Many critics have claimed that the wars in Iraq and
point, a boundary spanner.
Afghanistan have falsified the central premises of these books, in
Put our knowledge to use. I know many of us are
that the resistance in Iraq for instance is based on an idea of
engaged in direct work with local communities to
national sovereignty. But you are still not very enthusiastic about
enhance management of the commons, or providing
the resistance in its concrete form in Iraq and Afghanistan?
information, such as about the extent or “value” of the
 
commons (whether in economic, environmental, or
MH: The enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend. The fact
other terms), and in many cases also working with
that theirs are real and effective efforts against US imperialism
communities to advocate for their rights,
doesn't necessarily make them good. And even with my limited
We also have a lot to offer to help those working on
knowledge, some of them seem quite horrible.
global commons challenges. And if they don’t seek us
 
out, we shouldn’t be shy about putting forward what
The hypothesis in Empire – which I'm actually more and more convinced
we have learned and how it can be used. That requires
of; there are other things I doubt more and more – is not that nation
going out to where they are: beyond our own publications
states no longer matter, or that the functions of the nation states
to the things they read or pay attention to, such as:
are no longer important, but rather that we have to recognize that
briefs that trade in some of the scholarly language for
they function within a larger framework, that they are important
understandability by a wider audience, and which relate
elements of this network power. It was this that led us to the
to the global issues they are grappling with; and contact
hypothesis that the US can no longer dictate global order, in fact
with the media (which may also involve some of those
that no nation state can do that any more. It is not the case that if
trade-offs). But we also need to address policy at
the US isn't powerful enough, then China, Russia, or some caliphate
various levels. Let me give some examples.
will be. No, the terms of sovereignty, of political order, has changed
We have heard this week about efforts
so that no nation state can control them any longer. The Bush lot,
in England to advocate for stronger legal
Cheney and Wolfowitz, thought that they could act like imperialist,
rights for the commons, both on behalf
that they could dictate global order. And we have seen little by
of individual local commoners and for
little the demonstration of their failure, of the final burial of
the broader public interest. The 2006
unilateralism: first with military failures, then with the social and
Commons Act is a very important
economic failures in the US. I take that as evidence of the
accomplishment in this regard. But as
impossibility of national sovereignty dictating global order.
we have also heard, the law is (almost)
 
nothing without implementation, and that
So we have to create a new concept of sovereignty, or maybe a
requires a lot of work on the part of
different word than sovereignty, that allows us to think this
national government departments, local
collaboration of powers, of political and economic dominant nation
government bodies, commons councils,
states with corporations and international economic institutions. But
and members of the communities, who
this doesn't mean that nation states are not important, nor that the
will exercise their duties as well as their
US isn't important as a force of domination, or that Bolivia isn't
rights.
important as a demarcation of lines of defence, is just means that
For those who wonder whether our association’s name
they have to be considered in a larger framework.
change—dropping the “property” from our name—
 
implies any less commitment to work on property rights,
When you think about the struggles in Bolivia that led to Evo's
let me assure you that it doesn’t. Owen Lynch’s work in
election, one of the main starting points was the water war in 2000.
a number of countries provides an approach in working
It was a typical neoliberal privatisation story: the world bank told
for legal reforms to strengthen community-based property
the Bolivian government at the time that they had to privatise the
rights. He notes that: “As an initial step, this can be
water services, because it was costing more than they were making. So
accomplished by creating a legal presumption of local
they sold it to a conglomerate foreign corporation, who rationalized
community ownership wherever such evidence exists”
the pricing, which meant they raised the prices to what it actually
(CIEL 2002: 7). But he also notes that private rights are
cost, and this lead to massive protests. Who were the protests
often stronger than public or “commons” rights, which
against? They were against the Bolivian state, but they were also not
are easier to expropriate or reallocate without due
against the Bolivian state. They were against something else. They
process and compensation. Rather than having individual
were against the Bolivian state in so far as it was an element within
privatization, collective and community-based
the circuit of international institutions (IMF, The World Bank),
rights can be legally recognized as private property
international corporations, and also, of course, the US and its
rights, which would give the right-holders more leverage
dictation of a certain kind of neoliberal economic policy.
with outside interests, including government or rival
 
claimants. Such legal recognition can also strengthen
RN: And this is your concept in Empire. Much of the criticism after
community bargaining power with businesses that might
Empire andMultitude has been that the war in Iraq is classic
provide capital, knowledge, or market access so that the
imperialism. Has the Iraq war changed the basis for your concept?
community gets a higher share of the value of the product,
 
enhancing both their livelihoods and their prestige.
MH: No. Maybe I'm stubborn or blind but it has only reinforced it.
I won’t say it is easy to engage with policy, or that we’ll
Bush, Cheney, and Wolfowitz were drunk on power, so you could accept
always get it right. It’s usually easier to criticize than to
that they thought they were more powerful than they actually were. But
create, and for many of us, our training stresses
those on the left who also accepted that Bush, Cheney, and Wolfowitz
critical thinking. It can be scary. But if we don’t help
were more powerful than they were, those are the ones to blame. I
shape policy, others will, and they are likely to have
think there was a certain – and now I'm being uncharacteristically
less understanding of the commons.
mean – comfort in this: "We don't have to think about new concepts, it
After doing the study of Sananeri tank, I was involved
turns out everything is just as we thought, that it was just US
in some of the work that tried to synthesize
imperialism. We can use all the old terms!" I assume the same people
across cases of farmer managed irrigation, and began
are now able to recognize that this was not the case. I agree with you
to challenge the World Bank and other development
that the war in Iraq was a classic imperialist endeavour: It was a
agencies for irrigation projects that vested all authority in the state, rather than building in
classic imperialist endeavour conducted by a buffoon that was
farmer participation and even management
mistaken. To see Bush as anything else is to mistake Napoleon III for
of the systems. So it was with a
his uncle, as Marx mockingly said about the people in France in 1850s.
lot of trepidation that I found out that
It doesn't mean they are not dangerous; they may even be more dangerous.
“my tank,” Sananeri, had been included
 
in a European Union project
What Bush and his group have proven is that imperialism is dead, they
for tank rehabilitation, that had required
have shown how impossible it is. Rather than think that the form is
the registration of a tank
still alive, and we just need a new actor for it, I think the form
association in each site, and gave a
itself has changed.
matching grant to support the
 
association’s activities. My visit last
RN: The situation in Georgia looks like a rerun of classical
year was over a decade after that
imperialism of the nineteenth century: a contest between four or five
project, and I was nervous about what
actors in which the Caucasus was a central playing field. Is not
that had done to the tank. Having
imperialism coming back to life again now that we have more actors
become a bit jaded about the outcome
instead of just one dominant superpower?
of development projects over the intervening years,
 
imagine my pleasant surprise to find that this (and cell
MH: It certainly brings up plenty of memories... But I think that
phones) had actually made it much easier for the
you're raising the dead when seeing these echoes of the past and
association to operate. The involvement of a local
therefore missing the current situation. When we talk about "empire",
university and NGO in “organizing farmers” under the
it doesn't mean that there aren't going to be conflicts between the
project had certainly contributed to the good outcomes.
aristocrats of this global order, that the capitalist or political
There were, however, some indications that
factions aren't going to want a greater share.
there might be some equity problems resulting, either
 
from this policy or from other changes going on in the
RN: The current financial crisis concerns private and public property
area. Some of my Indian collaborators have been
in a very interesting way. How do you see the recent state
investigating, and just this week I got the preliminary
intervention into private companies?
results. So the cycle continues… from research, to
 
policy, to research on the outcomes of policy…to
MH: One thing I find interesting is that the US, with its
better policy?
neoliberalistic propaganda, has taken a dramatic turn in the last two
Being strategic about having a policy impact also
weeks. The medicines or practices the US has preached or forced others
means forging appropriate partnerships, which may
to apply, the US has not applied to its own crisis. The American state
be with civil society organizations, governments, aid
has intervened, not just to defend the American economy, but also the
agencies, or even the private sector. For example,
interests of particular capitalists and of the capitalist system as a
shall we accept Bakary Kante’s offer to forge a
whole. So once again we see this mutual relationship between private
partnership between UNEP and IASC to address
and public property, the capitalist state's central role, that capital
some of the combined challenges of sustainability,
is dependent on support from a structure of sovereignty.
linking environment to poverty reduction?
 
Conclusion
It is difficult to say what this means to us. I don't know if the so-
These are some of the elements of being strategic to
called "general collapse theory" is the right way to understand what
defend and enhance the commons.
is happening. I don't think believing or hoping this will lead to a
The IASC is itself a commons. Whether we achieve
general collapse is the right way to go.
anything depends on what we all contribute, but I also
 
think that there is a kind of multiplier effect when we pool
RN: Could this crisis open up for what you in Empire call "the
our efforts. So let me end with an invitation, a call to all
actualisation of the multitude", that the multitude will in itself
of you to contact members of the council or secretariat if
constitute a class and thereby a political subject?
you have ideas that you would like IASC to take forward.
 
I may be dreaming, but I would like to see that when we
MH: There is this Marxist tradition that separates between objective
meet again in two years, the widespread connotation of
and subjective crisis. The objective crisis, which is caused by the
the “commons” is not a tragic relic of the past, but a
functioning of capital (cyclic crisis, etc.), doesn't constitute a
vibrant hope for our shared future. And furthermore, that
threat to capitalism as a whole. While crisis that result from the
as an Association and as individuals, we will have contributed
pressure of the working class – from an expansion of proletarian
to making this happen.
desires, which can lead to an inflation in working class demands
For Further Reading:
(social security, welfare, etc) – can create openings that can give
Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science
birth to even autonomous projects. But I would hesitate to claim that
162 (3859): 1243-1248.
the financial crisis on Wall Street is a result of our expansion, of
CIEL (Center for International Environmental Law).
the expansion of the social movements.
2002. Whose Resources? Whose Common Good?
 
Washington DC: CIEL.
RN: In the news over the last few weeks we have seen the political
R.MEINZEN-DICK@CGIAR.ORG
elite express its interests more openly. In recent history we have
seen horrible things happen when the interest of capital and the
ruling class are threatened in a more direct manner. Do you see a move
in that direction?
 
MH: As I mentioned, the US is no longer able to dictate global order.
That does not mean that the situation is not a dangerous one. A
wounded elephant can still squash people.
 
An important difference between Europe, and the US to some degree, in
the thirties and today is that there is no present communist threat. I
don't see the rise of fascism as a prominent aspect of this crisis. I
disagree with many of my friends who call the US fascist, which they
do with reason: torture, Abu Ghraib, external wars to solve domestic
problems... But for me, this accusation or fear is that it is an
abrogation of the rule of law and in some ways the rule of capitalism.
It proposes a form of sovereignty that is in some sense outside the
social field, standing above it. In both political and theoretical
discussions in the recent years there has been an overemphasis on the
category of sovereignty in political analysis, on the extraordinary,
on the state of exception, and therefore a lack of analysis of what to
me seems the central, but ordinary, levels of daily life: the
functioning of law, of capitalism. The focus on Guantanamo and Abu
Ghraib takes the attention away form the real substance of the ruling
powers of today. If we were moving towards fascism, it would be
noticeable on these levels, that capital and state power is
dysfunctional in everyday life. But their power seems to me quite solid.
 
RN: Over the last years you and Negri have worked quite a lot with the
"metropole", a metaphor that situates the political thinking at the
heart of the empire, the mother city of the empire. Has the political
terrain of resistance changed from the periphery to the centre?
 
MH: The metropole is a central theme in Common Wealth. The hypothesis
is that the metropole is to the multitude what the factory was to the
industrial working class. The metaphor functions on different levels:
 
1) As the site of production, in the sense that production is no
longer isolated in the factory, but spread out across the city, in
social relations, etc.
 
2) As the site of exploitation and expropriation, in the same way that
the factory once was. For example, real-estate values are not
determined on what's inside the house, but by the common that is
produced by people in the city: a culturally diverse neighbourhood, or
one with a lot of social tensions, or a really boring one. All of this
is a result of the production of the common, which is expropriated by
the property value. A rundown and cheap neighbourhood attracts
students and artist, it becomes a cool place with cafes, galleries and
clubs, then the rich move in and the place turns really boring. It is
all about the expropriation of the common.
 
3) It is, as you point out, the centre for hierarchies, as a
"metropolis" in both ancient Greek and French colonialist sense.
 
4) And it is the site of antagonism, of revolt. Metropolitan revolt is
a strike against capitalism, but also as a revolt against the form of
the city itself. A direct example would be los piqueteros in Argentina
after 2000. Unions of unemployed workers, who can't strike at the
factory because they don't have a factory, and therefore choose to
strike in the city, picket the streets blocking the roads. In the same
way that the industrial working class occupied the factories, they
occupy the city. A more complex example is the revolt in les banlieues
of Paris in 2005. Of course the youth in the suburbs revolted against
the racial hierarchies, the new work laws, and precariousness in
general, but this is concretized as a revolt against the city. What
did they burn? Cars, modes of transport, schools – these are all
symbols or loci the city has of the means of their exclusion and
submission.
 
The analogy is useful. This does not mean that people in the
countryside are stupid, but rather that there has been a
"metropolitanization" of the entire world. The divisions between the
countryside and the city are not longer what they were.
 
RN: But does this not only apply to the Western societies, the city as
a city for production and rebellion, as a result of the exportation of
the industrial working class to, for example, Southeast Asia?
 
MH: In Southeast Asia, at least the countries I know, there are
Internet cafes on every street corner, fare more than in Europe or the
US. There is of course a metropolitanization of the countryside in
terms of control, but there is also a metropolitanization of the world
in terms of communication. I'm here thinking in analogy to what Marx
says in the "Brumaire", when he criticizes the French peasantry in the
1850s for being stupid, for not being able to represent themselves:
they were isolated and lacked the possibility to communicate with each
other, they lacked information. The workers on the other hand
communicated every day in the factory. It is this division that no
longer exists.

Revision as of 12:34, 7 November 2008

In the sandbox you can play with wiki syntax and more.

We have abundant reminders, both during the 2008 biennial conference and in the news that many local commons are under threat. I realize that this is nothing new—we’ve had examples of almost 500 years of enclosures of one type or another, in this country alone. But the processes are accelerating as dramatically higher food and fuel prices create increased demand for land to produce both food and agrofuels. The price of rice, for example, has doubled in the last five months, and many other key food prices have been increasing rapidly. While enclosures of the commons may lead to intensification of production of these commodities, we also need to ask at what cost, and to whom? In many cases it is the very poorest people who lose out, and many subsistence, environmental, and even spiritual values that are hard to quantify and price are lost. It isn’t just at the local level: we also have growing evidence of global commons under threat. The IASC has been addressing global commons issues since at least 1996, but it is good that it is a focal point of this conference. The atmospheric commons is one of the most critical examples, going beyond loss of air quality to wholesale climate change. The collapse of ocean fisheries also calls for urgent attention, as does the loss of genetic resources. The loss of biodiversity in terms of wild species of flora and fauna does receive some attention, but loss of agrobiodiversity is also a matter for serious concern, as the local landraces and “orphan crops” like leafy vegetables, roots, tubers, or medicinal plants are lost. This is part of our common human heritage, and can have serious repercussions for the resilience of world food systems. Let’s look for a minute at some of the challenges posed by the “new commons”. Our name change and the expansion of our mission to include these other types of commons has increased concern with these issues, but also to furthered opportunities to learn across resources. Again, in both the news and the papers of this conference we have examples of: enclosure (and expansion) of urban parks, gardens, and neighborhood improvements; ICT (information communications technology)-related commons such as bandwidth for internet and cell phones, or the internet itself; debates over intellectual property rights over music, crafts, books or text on the internet, and even genetic resources. Information and knowledge open up whole new realms for exploration of the commons. In April this year I attended an international conference on agricultural innovation systems. People at this meeting are dealing with issues like how to foster and spread innovation— whether by farmers, scientists, businesses, or partnerships of these. Increasingly, there are group-based approaches to not only extension information systems, but also participatory plant breeding or other types of knowledge generation and application. I was struck by how relevant the analyses of the commons are for addressing the problems with which they are grappling, and when I mentioned some of what we have found about managing commons, I got a lot of requests to point them to this literature, and grateful responses saying how useful this is. The list goes on, but let me now turn to what I mean by a Strategy for the Commons. A Strategy for the Commons Confronted with these challenges, we can either sit back and bemoan the “tragedy of the commons,” or we can bemoan the loss of the commons, whether local or global, “old”, or “new”, or we can try to do something about it. But what? Now I am not going to suggest any kinds of panaceas, simple solutions, and I don’t mean to imply that any of these apply everywhere. But I do suggest that elements of this Strategy for the Commons include: Continue the learning Share our knowledge Put it to use As IASC and as individual members we will each play different roles in this, but let us look at the components of each of these elements, and how they interconnect. Continue the learning: across disciplines, resources and countries. It is quite appropriate that our new acronym spells out “I ASK.” Study both successes and failures. Look for underlying principles as well as local specificities. Think about what lessons will apply to the next situation, especially to the “new commons.” I don’t see this learning as being in conflict with action. As an applied researcher myself, I firmly believe that sound theory and research methods are critical for getting a better understanding of what is going on as a basis for policies and practice. But I’ve also found that many of the best theoretical insights (and many methodological innovations) come from engaging with people in the field, which forces us to confront the limitations of our pared down conceptual models. That’s also often the most fun part. Last year, right at this time, I was back in Sananeri, the irrigation tank in India where I began my study of the commons, 25 years before (which, in turn, was right near my home town where I grew up). It reminded me of how exciting that feeling of discovery was. I had been hearing about the famous farmer managed irrigation systems in Bali and Nepal, but was told they didn’t exist in India, and this tank was government managed, but I was curious about how the tanks operated, so I did some interviews before starting on what was to be the “real” topic of my masters’ thesis. Imagine that feeling of discovering a very active local association managing the tank, and then, as I dug deeper, to find out that what I had been taught about the core of irrigation association activities was incomplete, because it had focused only on the internal activities, and not the efforts the group made to acquire water or liase with (lobby) the state. But as exciting as that learning can be, it can’t end there. We need to: Share our knowledge, among our membership, but also more broadly. The Commons Digest and the International Journal of the Commons are good tools for this. I realize that it’s ironic that the IASC, with so many scholars of the commons who know all about free rider problems, make our materials available as open access, but the reason is that we believe it is essential to share our knowledge on these issues so that we can build on each other’s work and put it to use for addressing the problems and seizing the opportunities that the commons present. This knowledge is too precious to hoard. We also need other ways to share this knowledge outside our Association. I ask each of you to look for opportunities to disseminate an understanding of the commons. Each of you is a member of other communities of practice, and can serve as a bridge, a transmission point, a boundary spanner. Put our knowledge to use. I know many of us are engaged in direct work with local communities to enhance management of the commons, or providing information, such as about the extent or “value” of the commons (whether in economic, environmental, or other terms), and in many cases also working with communities to advocate for their rights, We also have a lot to offer to help those working on global commons challenges. And if they don’t seek us out, we shouldn’t be shy about putting forward what we have learned and how it can be used. That requires going out to where they are: beyond our own publications to the things they read or pay attention to, such as: briefs that trade in some of the scholarly language for understandability by a wider audience, and which relate to the global issues they are grappling with; and contact with the media (which may also involve some of those trade-offs). But we also need to address policy at various levels. Let me give some examples. We have heard this week about efforts in England to advocate for stronger legal rights for the commons, both on behalf of individual local commoners and for the broader public interest. The 2006 Commons Act is a very important accomplishment in this regard. But as we have also heard, the law is (almost) nothing without implementation, and that requires a lot of work on the part of national government departments, local government bodies, commons councils, and members of the communities, who will exercise their duties as well as their rights. For those who wonder whether our association’s name change—dropping the “property” from our name— implies any less commitment to work on property rights, let me assure you that it doesn’t. Owen Lynch’s work in a number of countries provides an approach in working for legal reforms to strengthen community-based property rights. He notes that: “As an initial step, this can be accomplished by creating a legal presumption of local community ownership wherever such evidence exists” (CIEL 2002: 7). But he also notes that private rights are often stronger than public or “commons” rights, which are easier to expropriate or reallocate without due process and compensation. Rather than having individual privatization, collective and community-based rights can be legally recognized as private property rights, which would give the right-holders more leverage with outside interests, including government or rival claimants. Such legal recognition can also strengthen community bargaining power with businesses that might provide capital, knowledge, or market access so that the community gets a higher share of the value of the product, enhancing both their livelihoods and their prestige. I won’t say it is easy to engage with policy, or that we’ll always get it right. It’s usually easier to criticize than to create, and for many of us, our training stresses critical thinking. It can be scary. But if we don’t help shape policy, others will, and they are likely to have less understanding of the commons. After doing the study of Sananeri tank, I was involved in some of the work that tried to synthesize across cases of farmer managed irrigation, and began to challenge the World Bank and other development agencies for irrigation projects that vested all authority in the state, rather than building in farmer participation and even management of the systems. So it was with a lot of trepidation that I found out that “my tank,” Sananeri, had been included in a European Union project for tank rehabilitation, that had required the registration of a tank association in each site, and gave a matching grant to support the association’s activities. My visit last year was over a decade after that project, and I was nervous about what that had done to the tank. Having become a bit jaded about the outcome of development projects over the intervening years, imagine my pleasant surprise to find that this (and cell phones) had actually made it much easier for the association to operate. The involvement of a local university and NGO in “organizing farmers” under the project had certainly contributed to the good outcomes. There were, however, some indications that there might be some equity problems resulting, either from this policy or from other changes going on in the area. Some of my Indian collaborators have been investigating, and just this week I got the preliminary results. So the cycle continues… from research, to policy, to research on the outcomes of policy…to better policy? Being strategic about having a policy impact also means forging appropriate partnerships, which may be with civil society organizations, governments, aid agencies, or even the private sector. For example, shall we accept Bakary Kante’s offer to forge a partnership between UNEP and IASC to address some of the combined challenges of sustainability, linking environment to poverty reduction? Conclusion These are some of the elements of being strategic to defend and enhance the commons. The IASC is itself a commons. Whether we achieve anything depends on what we all contribute, but I also think that there is a kind of multiplier effect when we pool our efforts. So let me end with an invitation, a call to all of you to contact members of the council or secretariat if you have ideas that you would like IASC to take forward. I may be dreaming, but I would like to see that when we meet again in two years, the widespread connotation of the “commons” is not a tragic relic of the past, but a vibrant hope for our shared future. And furthermore, that as an Association and as individuals, we will have contributed to making this happen. For Further Reading: Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162 (3859): 1243-1248. CIEL (Center for International Environmental Law). 2002. Whose Resources? Whose Common Good? Washington DC: CIEL. R.MEINZEN-DICK@CGIAR.ORG

Retrieved from "https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=P2P_Foundation:Sandbox&oldid=25249"