the commons – prosperity by sharing silke helfrich rainer … · 2010. 10. 29. ·...

THE COMMONS – PROSPERITY BY SHARINGSilke Helfrich Rainer Kuhlen Wolfgang Sachs Christian Siefkes

Water Internet Photosynthesis Moor Forest

Air Meadow Health Pasture Frequency spect-

rum Periodic system Gene Soil Ice Electricity

Fire Education Heath Biodiversity Light Waves

Resources Culture Bottom of the sea Energy

source UV-rays Ozone layer Reefs Software

Culture Technique Reading Writing Algorithm

Language Silence Fairytale Knowledge Music

Dances Traditions Marketplaces Squares Wi-

kipedia Water Internet Photosynthesis Moor

Forest Air Meadow Health Pasture Frequency

spectrum Periodic system Gene Soil Ice Electri-

city Fire Education Heath Biodiversity Light

Waves Resources Culture Bottom of the sea

Energy source UV-rays Ozone layer Reefs Soft-

ware Culture Technique Reading Writing Algo-

rithm Language Silence Fairytale Knowledge

Music Dances Traditions Marketplaces Squares

Wikipedia Landscapes Time Social networks

Tides Internet Photosynthesis Moor Forest Air

Meadow Health Pasture Frequency spectrum

1

CONTENTS

FOrEwOrd 3

ThE rEpOrT aNd iTS SubjECT MaTTEr 4

prEFaCE 5

COMMONS, GEMEiNGüTEr — whaT iS ThiS? 6

buildiNG blOCkS OF ThE arChiTECTurE OF ThE COMMONS 11

hOw dO ThE COMMONS aFFECT uS? 13

ExCurSuS: ThE TraGEdy OF ThE “TraGEdy OF ThE COMMONS” 16

ExCurSuS: i aNd ThE OThErS 21

ThE COMMONS: whOSE prOpErTy? 22

STrENGThENiNG ThE COMMONS: idEaS, iNiTiaTivES, iNSTiTuTiONS 30

FuNdaMENTalS OF a COM MONS- baSEd pEEr prOduCTiON 41

iN CONCluSiON: a viSiON 44

liNkS 46

CONTribuTOrS 48

THECOMMONS–PROSPERITYBYSHARING

AreportbySilkeHelfrich,RainerKuhlen,WolfgangSachsandChristianSiefkesTranslation:MadhulikaReddy

PublishedbytheHeinrichBöllFoundation

BY SA

Design:blotto,Berlin

Allmainheadingsinthepublication:“LetsTrace”byJamesKilfigerhttp://openfontlibrary.org

HeinrichBöllFoundationSchumannstraße8,10117Berlin

T +493028534-0F +493028534-109E [email protected]

www.boell.de

FOREWORD 3

FOrEwOrd

“Asocietywithoutthecommonsisliketheskywithoutthesun”

Thesubject–andtherecognitionofthehiddenvalueofthecom-mons–isincreasinglyfindingitswayintopoliticalcommentaryandpublicconversation.This report seeks to shed lighton themany dimensions of the term and describe the many ways inwhichthecommonscancontributetofreedom,socialequityanddemocraticrenewal.Byre-evaluatingthecommonsweareabletoturnthedominanteconomicmodelonitshead.Ifwedirectourenergiestothatwhichworksandhelppeopledeveloptheirpoten-tial,solutionscanbefoundtoinnumerableproblemsconfrontingus.Relyingonnumerousexamples, thisreportopensupanewperspectiveonquestionsforwhicheachgenerationmustfindnewanswers.Itnotunusualforachangeofperspectivetounlockawholestorehouseofinnovativeideasandsolutions.The Heinrich Böll Foundation has been exploring the sub-

ject of the commons for some years now.This report had itsorigins inworkemanating fromsomeofourRegionalOfficesabroad, though it blossomed through the fruitful cooperationthatoccurredwhenvariousthinkerscametogetherintheinter-disciplinarypoliticalsalon,“Zeit fürAllmende”(TimefortheCommons).Iwishtothankallthosewhohavecontributedtothisreport,

particularly SilkeHelfrich, for the special dedication she hasbroughttothetask.Ihopethisreportmakesforinspiringreading.

Berlin,December2009

BarbaraUnmüßigPresidentoftheHeinrichBöllFoundation

THEREPORTANDITSSUBJECTMATTER4

ThE rEpOrT aNd i TS SubjECT MaTTEr

Whatoldertraditionhadreferredtoasres communes–commonassets–hasbeenrelegatedtothebackground,ifnotentirelytooblivion,bythemarketandthestateand their doctrines ofmarket-res privatae and state-provided res publicae. Com-monpoolresourcessuchasairandwateraretodaytreatedasres nullius“no-man’sresources”thatnooneownsorcaresabout.Thedisastrousconsequencesthishasforallofusaremanifesteverywheretoday.Yettheres communesor“commons,”astheyareknowninEnglish,arebyno

means“ownerless.”Theybelongtoallofus,andcannotandmaynotbeusedforjustanypurpose,orforthatmatterbedestroyed.Butwemustfirstclaimourrightstothem–allofus.Itisthecommonsthatfeedus,enableustocommunicatewitheachother,movearound,thatinspireus,bindustoplacesand–notleast–serveasdumpsitesforourwastes.Totalkaboutourcollectiverightstothecommonsopensupanewdimensiontothe

classicconceptofproperty,whichisfirstandforemostassociatedwiththerightsoftheindividual.Italsoraisesanumberofprovocativequestions:

Whatwouldtheconsequencesbeiflandweretobeunderstoodasacommons? ◆

Howwouldpublicspacechangeifitcouldnolongerbearbitrarilyprivatisedby ◆

advertisements,noise,vehiclesorparkinglots?Whatifknowledgeandculturalassetscouldbeusedforfree,asamatterof ◆

course,andtheircommercialuseweretheexception?Whatrulesandinstitutionscanhelpusbestmanagethecommons? ◆

Theabovequestionshavenotbeenthoroughlyexploredintheirtheoreticaldimensions,letaloneintheirpractical,political,socialandeconomicimplications.Yetsuchques-tionsmustbeansweredifwearetorecoverthecommons.Thisreportattemptstoexplorethepotentialofthecommonsiftheyareusedwise-

lyandsustainably.Itdelvesintothereasonswhysomanycommonsarethreatenedandexaminestherulesthatcanhelpprotectthecommonsfromruin.Inthefollowingpageswewillsharewiththereaderourthoughtsandstoriesonthesequestions.Notallcommonsarethesame.Noraretheinstitutionalarrangementsthatcan

helpprotectthecommonsfromprivateappropriationorruin.However,manydesignprinciplesforsuccessfulcommonshavebeenidentifiedbythecommonstheoristElinorOstrom,whoseawardofthe2009NobelPrizeforEconomicshasdrawnglobalatten-tiontotheseissues.SimilarlylegalscholarYochaiBenklerhasofferedimportantthe-oreticalapproachesthathecalls“commons-basedpeerproduction.”Weneedtostrengthenthecommonsasadistinctsphereofactivitybeyondthe

stateandthemarket,inamannerthatcomplementsboth.Toachievethis,eachofusiscalledupontoassumehis/herresponsibilityasco-ownerof“ourcommongoods,”whichwill not only enlargeour freedomsbutpromotegreaterparticipation in thedecisionsthataffectus.Unlikemarketsandstateassistanceprogramsandregulation,thecommonsneedpeople’scommitmentto function.Thewealththataccruesasaresultofthecommonsmustbeequitablyredistributedacrossallthespheresinwhichwelive.Thecompilersof thisreportaregrateful toseveralpeople for theircriticalsup-

port–extendedinaspiritofsolidarity–andtheircreativeassistance.OurspecialthanksgotoChristianeGrefe,JillScherneck,OliverWilling,JacquesPaysanandToniSchilling.WealsothankMadhulikaReddyforhertranslationworkandDavidBollierforthe

finaleditingofthistext.

SilkeHelfrich,RainerKuhlen,WolfgangSachs,ChristianSiefkes

“Etquidemnaturaliiurecommuniasuntomniumhaec:aeretaquaprofluensetmareetperhoclitoramaris.”

“Andbyvirtueofanaturallaw,thefollowingresourcesareinrealitycommontoall:air,flowingwaterandtheseaand,bythesametoken,theseacoast.”JUSTINIAN(535CE)

PREFACE 5

prEFaCE

The commons constitute awell-guarded secret to ourwelfare.All of us encounterthemeveryday,inmanyplaces;allofusareconstantlyusingthemforbusinessandcommerce,infamilylife,politicsandforleisure.Largelyinvisible,thecommonsareamongthoseprerequisitestakenforgrantedinsocialandeconomiclife.Publicatten-tion is insteadgiven to thecommons’youngersiblings:private goodsas they thatstreamoutofproductionhallsintoshoppingcentresandintotheworldofconsumers,andpublic goodsofthekindplannedandinauguratedbymayorsandnationalleadersaroundtheworld.Businesslikestofocusonprivategoodsandtheupsanddownsofprofitmakingandcapitalaccumulation.Thisobsessionleaveslittlespaceandenergyto focusonthe intrinsicneedsof thecommons.Thatapart, theonlyotherareaofinterestistheebbandflowinstatecoffers,fromwhichpublicgoodsarepaidfor.Thecommons,bycontrast,despitebeingindispensable,liveashadowyexistence.

Industry needs the commons in order to produce. All of us need them to live, and even survive.

Professor Elinor Ostrom’s Nobel Prize for Economics commemorates the achieve-mentsof a lifetimeof pioneering research intohowbest tomanage the commons.Collaboratingwith several generations of students and researchers, “Lin”Ostromhassystematicallystudiednaturalresourcecommonsaroundtheworld.Hergoalhasbeentolearnhowpeoplecouldmanagecollectivelyusedresourcesinsuchawaythattheycouldsatisfyalltheirneeds–aswellasthoseoffuturegenerations.Likeveryfewothers,Ostromhasdocumentedtheinnovation,communicationandcoordinationthatpeoplecanshowinsolvingproblemsthatdirectlyaffecttheirlives–thatis,iftheyaregiventhefreedomtodoso.Ostrom’sNobelPrize has focused fresh attention on the commons, and that is

excellentnews.Ithonoursa lifetimeofwork.Butthereareotherreasonswhythecommonsisgainingnewvisibility:theeconomiccrisisthathasshakentheworld.

The principle underlying a commons economy is: Everyone has the right to participate as equal partners in managing a resource.

The principle underlying the corporate entity is: Private money is the key. The more the money, the greater the influence.

ElinorOstromteachespoliticalscienceatIndianaUniversityinBloomington.In2009shebecamethefirstwomantobeawardedtheNobelPrizeforEconomics.Ostrom’sareasofresearchincludewatersupply,fishing,logging,useofpasture-landsandhuntinggrounds.Ostromstraddlesthelinebetweentwodisci-plines,however:workingattheinterfacebetweensocialscienceandeconomics,shecontributessignificant-lytobothdisciplines.HermajorworkisherbookGoverningtheCommons:The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.

PHOTO:OLIVIERMORIN,AFP/GETTYIMAGES

COMMONS,GEMEINGÜTER—WHATISTHIS?6

THE ALLEGORY OF THE DECK CHAIRS

Ashipisonacruisesailingfromporttoport.Laidoutontheupperdeckaredeckchairs;therearethreetimesfewerchairsthanpassengersonboard.Duringthefirstfewdaysofthecruise,thedeckchairshaveaconstantchangeofoccupants.Assoonassomeonegetsup,thechairisconsideredfree;nooneacceptstheideaofplacinghandkerchiefsorotherobjectsonchairstoindicatethattheyarebeingused.This isanexpedientarrangement toallocate the limitednumberofdeckchairs.Butoncetheshipsailsoutofaportandalargenumberofnewpassengers

comeonboard,thisarrangementbreaksdown.Thenewcomerswhoallknoweachotherdisplayadifferentkindofbehaviour.Theydrawthechairstowardsthem-selvesand,fromthenon,layexclusiveandcontinuousclaimtothem.Asaresult,themajorityoftheotherpassengerscannotuseanychairsatall.Scarcityreigns,fightsaretheorderoftheday,andmostoftheguestsonboardfindthemselveslesscomfortablethanbefore.

FromHeinrichPopitz,Phänomene der Macht,Tübingen1986

“CarnivalCruise”PHOTO:FLICKR-USERJOSHBOUSEL

Thestoryservesasanallegory for the lossof thecommons throughthemisuseofpower.Initiallythedeckchairsareavailable.Buttheyarelimitedinnumberandthedemandforthemgreat.Whichiswhythecommunityofpassengersinitiallyfollowstheruleoffreebutshort-termuse.Butassoonasonegroupdecidestomonopolisethechairsasitsexclusiveright,thissliceofsharedpropertyisnolongerrecognisedassuchandafightensues.Whatwehavehereisonegroupmakingapowergrab,andthosewhoareexcludedrefusetorecognizeanyruleattheendoftheday.Insuchasituationitmakesnodifferencewhetherthedeckchairsareappropriatedbypushingone’swaythrough,bypayingmoneytotheshippingcompanyorbyfollowingthecap-tain’sorders.Forthemajorityofthepassengers,thecruisefromnowonislesspleas-antandevenuncomfortable.This allegory can be applied tomany areas: education,water, land, the atmos-

phere.Limitingdeckchairstojustafeweffectivelyputsanendtoqualitytravelforall–whilesharinggenerallyenhancesit.So,too,thequalityofourlivessuffersifthefairandsustainablerighttousecollectivegoods,whicharenotthepropertyofanyone

COMMONS, GEMEiNGüTEr — whaT iS ThiS?

COMMONS, GEMEINGÜTER — WHAT IS THIS? 7

in particular, are simply seized without discussion or negotiation. Such processes of negotiation may be complex and conflict-ridden, but so long as they seek collaboration, not confrontation, they can result in acceptable, long-term solutions.

Commons – what are they?

Resources that can be collectively used constitute the inner structure of a functioning society. In this sense, shared resources constitute the infrastructure, inheritance, identity and culture of a community or nation.

In nature. Each of us is dependent on water, forests, soil, fishing grounds, diversity of species, landscapes, air and the atmosphere, along with all the life processes associat-ed therewith. By virtue of being born, each of us has a basic entitlement to the gifts of nature and to their preservation and equitable use, even if they are privately owned.

In the social sphere. A satisfying social life is impossible without town squares, parks and public gardens, after-work time, Sundays and holidays and even car pools, Inter-net communities, and sport and leisure-time get-togethers. All of us need spaces and periods of time for spontaneous, informal gatherings. In many respects, the social commons can be maintained by the communities and citizens’ initiatives themselves. However, they may also require public protection to assure safety and security. Inno-vative approaches beyond the market and the state are necessary for securing for one and all such complex services as health care, political participation and a stable financial system.

In the cultural sphere. It is obvious that language, memory, customs and knowledge are indispensable for any human society. Just as we need the natural commons for surviv-al, our creative activities require cultural commons – spaces for expressing ourselves, sharing, collaborating and reinventing things. For, ultimately, we must draw upon the stories, music and images of earlier generations in order to create new culture and pass along artistic styles, techniques and traditions. Similarly, we must ensure that the creative expression of our time will be freely accessible to future generations.

In the digital sphere. The freer our access to digital objects and databases, the better our production and exchange. It is therefore important that the Internet, software code and the abundance of online texts, audios, images and films be available to oth-ers, without excessive restrictions under copyright law.

PubliC squares rather than shoPPing malls

Mexico City’s centrally situated Plaza Hidalgo in Coyoacán is bursting with life. The cafes are full; both tourists and locals allow themselves to be seduced by the Plaza’s colours, smells and sounds. Whoever chooses to can linger on a park in the shade of a tree to watch the hustle and bustle around. People love coming to the square, and they come over and over again.


SuchplazasarepartofthecharmofmanyLatinAmericancities.Theysharetheirnamewithotherplazas,neglectedpublicspacesandoverlylargecommercialshop-pingarcades.InElSalvador’scapital,forinstance,shoppingmallsareconsideredthe“onlysafepromenades.”Parentsarereassuredwhentheyknowtheiralmostgrown-upchildrenarethereandnotintherun-downcitycentre.Buthere,inthese“malls,”thepatrollingisdonebyprivateguards,notbythepolice.Here,peoplesurrendertherightsascitizensandbecomemerecustomersgovernedbyprivaterules.ThecentreofSanSalvadorstillhassquarestolingerin,andthemunicipalauthori-

tieshavedrawnupaprogrammetobeautifythemwithparkbenchesandtelephonebooths.Butoncestreetvendorsandhustlersgohomepubliclifeveryquicklycomestoahalt.Onbalmyevenings,whichdescenduponSanSalvadorearly,thepublicsquaresremainlifeless.Peopleseldomlingerthereandseldomreturn.Whenasked,inarepresentativesurveyconductedbythesocialscienceresearch

instituteFLACSOin2006,whetherSanSalvador’scitycentrehadhistorical-culturalvalue for them, 90% responded“Yes.”Around80%even affirmed: “Yes, it’s oursquare.ItbelongstothepeopleofSanSalvador.”Butwhenaskedwhethertheyvis-itedthecitycentretomeeteachotherthere,around60%replied:“Rarely,andthattooonlyifIhappentobegoingthatway.”Agood70%wouldliketopulldownoldbuildingsandreplacethemwithcarparkinglots.SanSalvador’scitycentreclearlyreflectstheresidents’losttieswiththeircity.Thesetieshavebeenwornthinbysocialneglect,theinterestsofprivatedevelopersandthebudgetconstraintsfacedbylocaladministrations.

But for thatmatter, even in theheartofBerlin,parksarebeingclosedand roadsshiftedtoprovidespacefortheexpansionof“placesofconsumption.”Whoconsultedthecity’sinhabitants,towhomtheroadsandsquaresbelong?

Urban commons are places full of life in which the distinctive tastes and talents of local residents can shine. For example, the famous neighbourhoods of Berlin have been shaped by the residents themselves, who naturally stand ready to defend their neighbourhoods against outside interference. This is just one way in which the rediscovery of public space as a commons can make cities livable again.

THE HISTORY OF THE IDEA OF THE COmmOnS

Dependinguponhowyoudefineit,theideaofthecommonsgoesbackthousandsofyears.Butsincetheideahasbeenlargelyerasedfrompublicawareness,itisinstruc-tivetorecollectthatapproximately1,500yearsago,theCodexJustinianumoftheLateRomanPeriodrecognizedafarmorecomplexsetofownershipformsthanwerecognizetoday.TheCodexmakesdistinctionsamongfourtypesofownership:

“TheyhavepavedParadiseandturneditintoaparkinglot”JONIMITCHELL1970

Alifelesssquare,Berlin-MittePHOTO:FLICKR-USERTEORUIZ

COMMONS,GEMEINGÜTER—WHATISTHIS? 9

Resnulliuswerethoseresourcesthathadnoownersandcouldthereforebefreely ◆

usedbyanyone.Resprivataedescribedresourcesthatconstitutedtheprivatepropertyofindividu- ◆

alsorfamilies.Respublicaecoveredassetssuchasroadsorpublicbuildingsthatwerecreatedby ◆

thestateforpublicuse.

Thelastcategoryrelatestoourtopic,thecommons:Rescommunesreferredtonaturalresourcessuchasair,riversandthesea,which ◆

constitutedthecommonpropertyofall.

NATURE

Theabovedistinctionseventodayhelpusperceivedifferentformsofpossibleowner-shipsystemsinsociety.However,thenatureofacommonsisnotjustamatterofown-ership,butalsoofsocialrulesandtraditions.TheRomancategoriesofpropertymustbemodifiedtotakeaccountofcontempo-

raryrealities,ofcourse.Forexample,res communestodaymustbeunderstoodinawidersense,toincludepeople’ssharedculturalheritageandcollaborativecreationsinthedigitalworld.

Thethreestreamsflowingintothecommonscurrent.GRAPHICILLUSTRATIONBASEDONONEAPPEARINGINPETERBARNES,CAPITAL-ISM3.0

wHAT’S GOOD TO KnOw

Itisimportanttounderstandthatthecommonsand“publicgoods”arenotthesamething.Somecommonssharecertaincharacteristicswithpublicgoods,whichiswhythetwoareoftenconflated.Buttheyalsodifferinsignificantways.Forbothcommonsandpublicgoods, itcanbedifficult toexcludesomeone

fromusingthem.WeallbenefitfromphotosynthesisandwecanalluseWikipediaorrelyuponmathematicalalgorithms.Abasicdifferencebetweenthenotionofthecommonsandtheclassicaleco-

nomiccategoriesofgoodsisthatmanycommonsareinherited:theyareeithergiftsofnatureandhavebeennurturedassuch,ortheywereproducedandhandeddownbypersonsandgroupswhoarenotalwaysclearlyidentifiable.Thiscouldinvolveahistoricallylengthyprocess(culturaltraditions,culturallandscapes,lan-guages)oraveryshortone(Wikipedia,freesoftware).The commons also emerge when they are created by individuals working

togetherwhothendeclarethemtobeacommons.Nopoliticianorstateagencyisinvolved.ExamplesincludetheInternetmarkuplanguageforwebpages,HTML,andtheInternet-relatedprotocolhttp,andworksreleasedunderafreelicence).Bycontrast,publicgoodsareforthemostpartproducedbystateinstitutions.

Thelayingofroads,buildingofalighthouseandsupplyingfundsforpublicsecurityareallexamples.Thefocusofpublicgoodstendstobecivilinfrastructureandservicesthatthepublicneeds.

Public goods require that the state plays a dominant role. The commons require above all mature, engaged citizens. Living in a commons-based culture means taking one's life into one's own hands.


Itgoeswithoutsayingthatthecommonsortherightsofpeoplewhobelongtoacommonsareoftendependentonthenation-state.Thusthepreservationandsupportofglobalcommons–theatmosphere,oceans,space—ishardlypossiblewithoutinter-governmentalagreements.Ifseaandairspaceweretobeparcelledoutlikeland,theneachstatewould

somehow have to assure itself an adequate number of interconnected marine“waterways” to ensure its own ships a free run. Only affluent countries couldaffordthis,andallotherswouldhavetopayatolltotravelon“alien”waterwaysorreceivepermissiontomovearound.Fishermenwouldbeleftonlywithportionsoftheseathattheyownedorrented;diversandothersengaginginwatersportswouldberestrictedtozonesspecificallyearmarkedforthepurpose.

The sea is a commons. Everyone has the right to travel on it. Mobility would be unthinkable without the commons.

Moststatesclaimexclusiverightstolargestretchesofseainfrontoftheircoastsfor economicuse,while ships can travel unhindered everywhereprovided theirmotivesarepeaceful.Sofarthehighseashavenotbeendividedupintoindividualplots.Thesameistrueofairspace.In1954,aCanadianfiledalawsuitcomplaining

aboutaircraftflyingoverhisplotofland.Hearguedthatowningaplotoflandalsomeantowningtheearthbeneathit,downtothecentreoftheearth,andalsoall the air above it, extending endlessly up to space.Aircraft seeking to enter“his”airspacemustaccordinglyseekhispermissionfirst.Fortunately,thejudgedecreedthatairandspacecouldnotbeowned;rather,theythecommoninherit-anceofmankind.Theyarecommons,orinlegalterms,res omnium communis.

Suggested literature: SilkeHelfrich,Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung(ed.):Wem gehört die Welt? Zur Wiederentdeckung der Geme-ingüter,2ndedition,Munich2009

“Oceanandreef”PHOTO:FLICKR-USERALIWES144

BUILDINGBLOCKSOFTHEARCHITECTUREOFTHECOMMONS 11

buildiNG blOCkS OF ThE arChiTECTurE

OF ThE COMMONS

Thecommonsaremadeupofthreebasicelements:thebuildingmaterial,thepeopleandtherulesandstandardsthatallowallelementstocometogether.

The first building block is material. Itrelates to theresources themselves.Theycanbephysical, suchaswater, soiland theatmosphere,or intangible, suchasgeneticinformation,softwarecode,algorithmsandculturaltechniquesoreventhetimeatourdisposal.Allthesearecommonpoolresources.Weallhavenaturalentitlementstousethem.

The second building block is social. Itreferstopeoplewhomakeuseoftheseresources.Theideaofthecommonsisinconceivablewithoutitbeinglinkedtopeopleengagedwitheachothertomanagearesourceinspecificsocialmilieus.Knowledgecanbeusedbypeopletomakeadiagnosisorfindacure.Culturaltechniquescanbeusedtocreatesomethingnew.Resourcesareconvertedintocommonsbythepeoplewhocol-lectivelyusethem.

The third building block is regulatory.Thisencompassestherulesandnormsgoverningthemanagementofthecommons.Thesevarygreatly.Regulatingtheuseofbytesandinformationisquitedifferentfrommanagingnaturalresourcessuchaswaterandfor-ests.Whatiscommontoallofthemisthateverycommunityofusersdecideforitselfhowtheirresourcesaretobemanaged.Thiscansucceedonlyifagroupofpeopleevolvesacollectiveunderstandingofhowaresourceshouldbemanaged.Thecomplexsocialprocessbehindthisiscalled“commoning”–atermrecoveredfrommedievaltimesbythehistorianPeterLinebaugh.Inthissense,thecommonsisa“verb,”nota“noun.”Fromthis“commoning”thereemergerulesandnormswhicharetobenegoti-atedinprocessesthatareoftenconflict-ridden.

“Thereisnocommonswithoutcommoning”PETERLINEBAUGH

BUILDINGBLOCKSOFTHEARCHITECTUREOFTHECOMMONS12

InsomeareasofthecityofBostonintheUSA,thereisawinterritualthatisper-formedafterthefirstsnowfall.Peopleshoveloutastretchofthestreetandthenplaceboxes,garbagebinsoroldchairsintheopenspacestomarkthemas“their”parkingspotsuntilthesnowmelts.ElinorOstromhadthefollowingtosayaboutthisritual:“Thatisacommons.”Why?Becausethereisconsensusinthoseneighbourhoodsthatpeoplewhoshovelouttheparkingspacesareentitledtotemporary“userights”ofthespaces.Asinthecaseofthedeckchairsonthecruiseship,asocialcommunitycomesupwithasimplesolutionfordealingwithfiniteresources:temporaryrightsofuseratherthanunrestricted,permanentrights.Evensimplesolutionssometimesemergeonlyafteralongstruggle.

ParkinginwintryBostonPHOTO:FLICKR-USERANDWAT

HOWDOTHECOMMONSAFFECTUS? 13

hOw dO ThE COMMONS aFFECT uS?

THE COmmOnS EnHAnCE quALITY TO LIFE

Thecommonsaresourcesofvalueandvaluationoutsideofmarkets,orasacomple-menttomarketvalue.Peoplebenefitinmorewaysthanoneiftheycanavailthem-selvesofthecommonsalongsidetheservicesprovidedbythemarketandthestate.Thesebenefitsareobviouswhere–as in innumerablevillages in thedeveloping

South – collectively used natural assets such as pastureland,water, lakes, forests,fieldsandseedsformthebasisoflivelihood.Communityrightsensureaccesstoessen-tialresourcesfreeofcharge,whichispaidforwiththecoinofcooperationandsolidar-ity.Oncetheproductsflowingfromtheseresourcesfood,buildingmaterials,medicine,heartandsoforthareonlyavailableasmarketproducts,tobepaidforwithmoney,manypeoplewillbeforcedtodowithout.

The commons allow the poor to make both ends meet. They constitute the difference between an existence in poverty and one in dignity.

Thesituationissimilarinthecities.Evenhere,thecommonscanprovide“free”ben-efitsthatwouldotherwiserequirepayment.Thus,playgrounds,squares,yardsandparksserveasareasofrecreation,socialinteractionandself-expression.Everypersonhasarighttosuchamenities,anditistheroleofpoliticstoremindusthatsuchrightsmustnotbeabridged.Theymustbedefendedcollectivelyagainstprivateappropria-tionandcommercialisation.Butmoreoftenthannot–andthisisthereal“TragedyoftheCommons”(seep.16)–theactualroleofthecommonsonlybecomesapparentwhenthesecommonsareendangered.Thus,forinstance,intensivesocialcooperationmadepossiblebyurbandensityis

atypeofwealththatisoftennotrecognized.Shortdistancespromotesavingstotheextentthatshoppingmaybeundertakenonfootorchildrensenttoschoolwithouttheneedfortransport.Spatialproximitystimulatesnetworkingandcooperation,asinthecaseofself-administeredkindergardens,neighbourhoodhelpandcollectivegar-dening.Foreachofthesecasesthefollowingequationmaybeframed:

“Youandyourfamilyaremoreaffluentthanyouthink.Youhaveashareinthecommons.”HARRIETBARLOW,ONTHECOMMONS

HOWDOTHECOMMONSAFFECTUS?14

THE COmmOnS EnAbLE PARTICIPATIOn

“Communitygardensareallabout50%gardeningand100%localpoliticalorganisa-tion.”statesKarlLinn,aleaderoftheflourishingNorthAmericancommunitygar-denmovement.EveninGermany,communitygardensareexperiencingarenaissance.Therearenownearly100“InterculturalGardens”in55cities,andanother50areintheprocessofbeingdeveloped.Inmostcases,citizensjointogetherinassociationstousefallowlandforproducingtheirownfood,andasaplaceforthesocialintegra-tionofmigrants–bothmaleandfemale.Hoeinganddiggingtogether,theyacquirenewgroundundertheirfeet–inthetruesenseoftheword.Interculturalgardensaresitesofneighbourlinessandculturalexchange.Thoseinvolvedsharespaceandtime,exchangeinformationandmediateconflicts.Theyproducefoodforthemselveswith-outtherigidhierarchicalstructuresofbusinessorgovernment.Neighbourhoodgardens,smallgardens,herbgardensandguerrillagardens:the

desiretocreateurbangreenscapesisblossomingeverywhere.Thuswehaveoasesofcommunityinnovationemergingandflourishingincitycentres.Forinstance,severalhundredfamiliesfromdifferentcountriesliveinSahlkamp,aneighbourhoodinHan-novercharacterisedbyhigh-risebuildings,unemployment,youthviolenceanddrugabuse.Adultsintheareaareoftenisolatedandhardlyparticipateinsociallifeoutsideoftheirethnicnetworks.Butinrecentyears,theyhaveconvertedtheroofsofunder-groundgaragesinSahlkampintosmall,idyllicgardens.

Urbanlandscapingformsanimportantelementinfutureurbandevelopment.Horticul-turalandagriculturalenterprisesthatstillexistincitycentresarenolongerregardedas“vestiges”ofpre-industrialtimesbutasbuildingblocksoffutureurbanplanning.“Whatisanticipatedhereiswhatfuturedevelopmentneedsforahighstandardofliv-ing:sustainablelifestylesandnewmodelsofaffluence,”writestheStiftung Interkul-tur,thecountry-widecoordinatingagencyofthenetworkIntercultural Gardens.

The community gardens are life forms and designs that make life livable in cities, which grow increasingly complex and anonymous.

BalticStreetCommunityGarden,BrooklynNYPHOTO:FLICKR-USERFLATBUSHGARDENER


THE COmmOnS PROVIDE PLATFORmS FOR CREATIVITY AnD COOPERATIOn

Ithaslongsincebeenknownthatcooperationcanbeimmenselyproductive,especiallyinthedigitalworldwerecompletelynewformsofcooperationhavearisen.Thankstoelectroniccommunication, for instance, thousandsofpeopleareable tocontrib-utecodeforbuildingfreeoperatingsystemsandotherfreesoftwareprogrammes.Inresearch,asine-learning,collaborative,globallydistributed,self-organisedformsofworkaretakenforgrantedtoday.Inthedigitalage,creativityistakingonnewformsthattranscendtheindividual.Oftenitisfoundthattheenthusiasmandaccumulatedcompetenceoflobbyistsis

innowayinferiortotheknowledgeofexpertsfrom,say,commercialsoftwarefirmsormediacompanies.Fourheadscanthinkmorethantwo.Intheever-increasingnumberofWeb2.0applicationssuchasTwitter,wikisandblogs,newformsofcooperationandknowledge-sharingarearising.TheInternetcanhostnewplatformsforcollaborativeintelligenceanddecentralisedingenuity,whicharethenmadeavailabletoall.Contri-butionsfromalargenumberofpeoplecangeneratenotjustsoftware,butresearchprojects,filmoraudioproductionsandevenentiredictionaries.Throughbroad-basedparticipation,onlinecommunitiesareabletoproducehigh-qualityproductsandserv-ices,whichmayalsohavemonetaryvalue.

Crucial to this economy of sharing and participating is that everything is freely accessible to everybody, thereby guaranteeing that work in this area will continue and whatever emerges will be considered new commons.

Almostallsocietiesshowsomecombinationofcompetition,planningandsolidarity,althoughashiftintherelativeproportionsmaybeobservedinthecourseofhistory.Weshouldrememberthattheexchangeofgoodsthroughthemarket–howeverall-encompassingandnaturalitmayappeartoday–ismerelyonewaytosupplygoodstopeople.Alongsidethemarketareatleasttwootherchannelsofsupply:state-organ-isedproduction,andproductionanddistributionincommunities.Whiletheprincipleofcompetitiontheoreticallyprevailsinthemarket,andthestateusestheprincipleofplanning,communitiesproceedprimarilyonthebasisofsocialreciprocity.In recent decades, the logic of themarket and state has eclipsed people’s con-

fidence incooperationandsocial reciprocityasways toachievecommongoals.Atthesametime,thesearchforcommunitytiesandcooperationseemstobeassertingitselfonceagain–alongsidethedesireforindividualfreedom.Thatisarguablywhyinterestinthecommonsisrising;itservesthisneed.Thisspiritliesbehindthecoop-erativemanagementoffishinggroundsonCanada’sAtlanticcoastaswellasthecol-lectivedevelopmentoffreelyaccessiblesourcesofknowledgeinthecommons-basedeconomy(software,researchdata,scientificjournals),aprocessoftencalled“peerproduction.”

A solution to the present problems does not lie in the state restraining itself to make room for the market but, rather, in its stepping out to guarantee communities the right to manage and use their commons.

“WhydoesFigarosing,whydoesMozartwritemusicthatFigarosings,whydoweallfindnewwords?Becausewehavethecapacityto.Homoludensmeetshomofaber.Thesocialconditionofglobalinterlinkages,whichwecalltheInternet,enableseachofustobecreativeinanewwaywehadneverimaginedbefore.Ifonlywewouldnotlet’property‘bethrustinbetween.”EBENMOGLEN,DERANAR-CHISMUSTRIUMPHIERT

ExcursEXCURSUS:THETRAGEDYOFTHE“TRAGEDYOFTHECOMMONS”16

ExCurSuS: ThE TraGEdy OF ThE “ TraGEdy

OF ThE COMMONS”

TheAmericanbiologistGarrettHardingavetheworldapowerfulmetaphorin1968.Inthatyear,theprominentscientificjournalSciencepublishedhisessay,“TheTragedyoftheCommons.”Har-din’smetaphorofthepasture,towhichallherdsmendrivetheirsheep,madeanimpact.Hardinarguedthatifherdsmensharedapastureforgrazingtheirsheep,everyherdsmanwouldmaximizehispersonalgainbyaddingonemoresheeptohisgrazingherd,andthenanother,andyetonemore.Totheindividual,theshort-termgainsaretangibleand“rational”.Thecostsofsuchbehav-iour,though,extendbeyondanyindividualherdsman,andaffecteveryone today andwill be extended gradually into the future.Hardinwasconvincedthat thedynamicsofsuchbehaviouraremostlyunavoidable.The impactof theover-exploitationof thecommonsisnotfeltuntilthepastureisruinedandcannotfeedanybody’ssheep.Astaggeringconclusionindeed.Sincethe70s,themetaphoroftheovergrazedpasturecom-

monwasindiscriminatelyappliedtonumeroussituationsinvolv-ing collective resourcemanagement. It entered social scienceandeconomictextbooksandshapedthethinkingofwholegen-erationsofstudents.Intheprocess,thenotionofthe“tragedyofthecommons”grewintoanindestructiblemyth.ThisremainslargelytruetodaydespitethemanyempiricalflawsinHardin’sargument.ReferringtothemostsignificantsectionofHardin’sessay,theeconomistParthaDasguptasaysthatitis“difficulttofindapassageofcomparablelengthandfamethatcontainsasmanyerrors”(The Control of Resources,Oxford1982).IttookextensiveempiricalresearchbytheProfessorElinorOstromandherteamstoexposethecoarsenessandfallaciesofthe“trag-edy”argument.Hardindidhisbit to feed thenarrowperceptionofmanas

homo oeconomicus–asnothingbutaprofitmaximiser.Asear-lyasin1954,facedwiththethreatofexcessivefishingintheseas,theeconomistScottGordonsimilarlycalledno-man’slandthepropertyofall.Thesaying“everyone’spropertyisnoone’sproperty”becamewell-known.Onehastyinferencefollowedtheother,andsoonitwasconsideredatruismthatthetragedyof

“Thefirstpersonwho,havingfencedoffaplotofground,tookitintohisheadtosaythisismineandfoundpeoplesimpleenoughtobelievehim,wasthetruefounderofcivilsociety.”JEAN-JACQUESROUSSEAU

ExcursEXCURSUS:THETRAGEDYOFTHE“TRAGEDYOFTHECOMMONS” 17

thecommonsisinevitableaslongaseveryonehasaccesstothecommons. The commons is considered everyone’s and, conse-quently,noone’sproperty.Years later, Hardin was compelled to modify his essay byconceding that he had in fact described the “tragedy of theunmanagedcommons.”(Thetermissomethingofanoxymoron,becauseacommonsbydefinitionismanaged.)ButitistruethatinhisoriginalessayHardindescribedasituationofunhinderedaccesstolandthatbelongedtonoone–anopenaccessregime.Hehadmixedupthecommonsandno-man’sland.

However, a commons is not no-man’s land. A commons emerges from the capacities of a user community to establish rules for access and use, for the benefit of all, and to identify and punish “free riders” who abuse the commons. A commons always belongs to a group of commoners.

Further,Hardin’sanalysisassumedthatherdsmenwouldnottakethetimetoconversewitheachotherandworkoutrulesforman-agingthecommons.Inreallife,ofcourse,peoplewhocollectivelymanagenaturalresourcesareconstantlytalkingandnegotiating.

The commons emerge and evolve on the basis of communication in vibrant social networks.

Hardinobviouslysupposedthatpeopleprimarilyproducetosell,and with corresponding profit expectations. But we need the

“VillagegreenGroßarm-schlag”PHOTO:KONRADLACKERBECK,WIKIMEDIACOMMONS

ThecommonsforHardinisalandofplentythatispickedclean.Forhiscritics,itismoreofajointpicnictowhicheachindividualcontributesandwhereeachhelpshimselfinmoderation.BERNHARDPÖTTER,LEMONDEDIPLOMATIQUE,AUGUST2009,P.10

ExcursEXCURSUS:THETRAGEDYOFTHE“TRAGEDYOFTHECOMMONS”18

numerouscommonsprimarilyforourselves, inourlivesbeyondthemarketplace.Oncethisisensured,commercialusecannotberuledout;itjustmustbekeptwithinreasonablelimits.When itoccurs, theso-called“tragedyof thecommons” is

unfailinglyatragedyofthehumancommunity–itsinabilitytoevolveandimplementrulesformanagingthecommons.

Nowhere is this more evident than in cases where access to natural resources is actually unregulated, or where cooperation within the community does not exist for various reasons. The dramatic overexploitation of the atmosphere and the threatening prospects of fish stocks being wiped out across the world are testimony to the failure of numerous attempts made so far to get the international community to agree on a set of meaningful rules. This must – and can – change.


THE COmmOnS EnAbLE uS TO COLLECTIVELY ACHIEVE mORE AnD DO bETTER

In1991,theFinnishcomputersciencestudentLinusTorvaldsdecidedthathewantedtodevelopanewcomputeroperatingsystemthatcouldemulateUnix,acomplicatedsoftwareprogramthatwascopyrighted.Atfirst,Torvaldsonlywantedtoupgradehisnewlyacquiredcomputerwithmissingfunctions,butaftermonthsofeffort,hereal-isedthathissystemcouldalsobeofusetoothers.“Iamworkingona(free)operatingsystem(justasahobby…),”TorvaldswroteontheInternet.Heaskedforfeedbackaboutwhatfeaturesotherprogrammersmightwantinsuchasystem.WeekslaterhepostedthesoftwareontheInternet.ThisenabledjustaboutanyonetodownloadTorvald’scode,useitandevenadaptittohis/herownneeds,providedtheuserhadtherequisiteprogrammingskills.Torvald’sannouncementmetwithtremendousinterest,fortheoperatingsystems

availableatthetimeeitherofferedfewfeatures(asinthecaseofDOS)orwereexpen-sive.Moreover,theyweredevelopedbycompaniesoverwhomtheusershadnoinflu-ence.LinusTorvalds’approachwasasensation.Hemadetheprogram’ssourcecodeaccessibletothepublic,explicitlysoughtfeedbacksandtheparticipationoftheusers,andmadetheresultsavailabletoall.Ittookjustovertwoyearsforoverhundredpeo-pletodevelopLinusTorvalds’system,whichwaschristened‘Linux’afteritscreator(acombinationof“Linus”and“Unix”).ItwasatthistimethattheGNUprojectinitiatedbyRichardStallman(seep.39)

haddevelopedseveralfreelyavailablecomponentsforoperatingsystems.Whencom-binedwiththecoreprogrammedevelopedbyTorvalds,theGNUprogrammesgavebirthtoafullyfunctionaloperatingsystemthatcouldbefreelymodifiedandthatdidnotcostanythingtoacquireanduse:GNU/Linux.Theoperatingsystemwaslicensedundersomethingknownas theGeneralPublicLicense (GPL)–a licenseheldbyacopyrightholder(inthiscase,Torvalds)thatauthorizesanyonetocopy,modifyandsharetheprogramunderwhateverconditionstheywantso long as the derivative work is also available under the same license.ThisGPLlicenseensuredthatpeoplecouldalwaysaccessandusetheprogramwithoutanyone“takingitprivate.”Thecodewouldremaininthecommons.

TodayalongsideWindowsandMac0S,Linuxisoneofthethreemostwidelyusedsys-temsintheworld.Evenmorepopularwithcompaniesthanwithprivateusers,Linuxisparticularlypopularforuseonserversthatneedtoruncontinuouslyandreliably.Thefreeoperatingsystemisusedevenwhereperformancerequirementsarehigh;90%ofthe500mostadvancedsupercomputersrunonLinux,forexample.Linux’ssuccessrestsnotonlyonthefactthatthesoftwarecanbesharedandmod-

ified,asinacommons,butalsoonthecommunitythatisresponsibleforitsdevelop-ment.Theopen,decentralisedandseeminglychaoticmannerinwhichTorvaldsandhisfellow-hackerscollaboratedhasenteredtheannalsofsoftwarehistoryasthe‘bazaarmodel’–asystemofopen,diverseparticipationandlooselycoordinatedmanagement.Bycontrast,thetraditionalstyleofsoftwaredevelopmentisamorehierarchical,care-fullyplanned“cathedralstyle”directedbycentralizedauthoritiesand“experts.”

Participationinprojectsforfreesoftwareisoftendescribedbythe90-9-1rule:90%merelymakeuseofthesystem;some9%contributetofurtherdevelopmentfromtimetotime;whileamere1%isinvolvedonaregularandintensivebasis.Someusersspo-radicallycontribute;othersareintensivelyinvolvedbychoice.Nooneisforcingany-onetoparticipate,butontheotherhand,therearefewbarrierstoparticipating.Eachpersondecidesforhimselfwhetherhewouldliketodosomethingandifso,howmuch.Moreoftenthannot,involvementstartswithsomeonereportinga“bug”–somethingdoesnotworkproperly;perhapshemaythenwritea“patch”torectifytheerror,orhemaytestthesystemanddocumenttheproblems–therebycontributingtothefur-therdevelopmentofthecommons.Moreexperiencedparticipantsexaminethecodethathasemerged.Theydecide

whether it can be incorporated into the system without destroying that which isalreadyinplace,orifitneedstobecorrected.Thereareapproximatelyahundredsuch“maintainers”withLinuxwhoassume responsibility for specific sub-systems

Tux,theLinuxpenguinBYLARRYEWING

LinusTorvaldsLINUSMAG.COM

Linux’successrestsnotonlyonthefactthatthesoftwareitselfisacommons;ratheritrestsprimarilyonthecommunitybehinditsdevelop-ment.

HOWDOTHECOMMONSAFFECTUS?20

andmakesurethateverythingworks.Thelongerandmoreintensivetheworkputinbyaperson,thelessproblematicitwillbeforhischangestobeincorporatedbythemaintainersincharge.Theroleofthemaintainerdoesindeedentailgreaterresponsi-bilityandinfluenceoverthefuturedevelopmentoftheproject;yetitdoesnotrelievehimorherofaccountabilitytothecommunityofprogrammers.TheLinuxcommunityhasmanagedtofindafreeandopenstyleofsoftwaredevel-

opment,characterisedbyfewformalrulesandtheabsenceofcommandstructures.Ithasalsointheprocessdisprovedthe“Brooks’sLaw,”applicabletoclassicsoftwaredevelopment,whichcontendsthattheexpansionoftheteambeyondacertainpointslowsdownsoftwaredevelopmentbecausecommunicationbecomesdisproportionate-lycomplicated.Developmentinthebazaarstyleworkswiththefollowingruleappliedtoit:

“Provided the development coordinator has at his disposal a medium that is at least as good as the Internet, and this coordinator knows how to lead without using coercion, several heads are bound to work better than just one.” (Eric Raymond)

Recommended literature EricRaymond:Die Kathedrale und der Basar.http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/articles/de/Kathedrale/

THE COmmOnS EnSuRE SOCIAL COHESIOn

Atpresent,theearth’satmosphere,thelargestcommonresourceavailabletous,isareminderthatphysicalassetsandcommunityformationarecloselylinked.Inordertoconverttheatmospherefromno-man’slandintoacommons,theworld’snationsmustsomehowconstitutethemselves intosomethingofaworldcommunity.Becausethecommonsneed“caretakers”whoareresponsibleforthejudicioususeofthecollectiveresource,nationsmustestablishnewformsofcooperation.Asthissuggests,thecom-monsisawaytonurturesocialcohesioninsociety,whichinturnmakesafundamentalcontributiontowell-functioningmarketsandthestates.


Noteverythingisacommons,butthereisalotthatcanbecomeacommons.Theterm‘commons’denotesthataresourceisbeingmanagedandusedcollectivelyinthelongtermwithoutbeinguseduporwithheldfromothers.Italsoindicatesthat:

anidentifiablegroupistakingcareoftheresourceinquestionandnurturing ◆

itratherthanlettingitbefreelyexploited;

thisgroupformulatesandagreestosuitable,transparentrulesformanaging ◆

thecommons,ratherthanacceptinga“freeforall”;

themanagementoftheresourcesisforthemostpartself-organisedrather ◆

thanexternallycontrolled;

alltheuserscanactivelyhelpshapeanddeterminemanagementpolicies ◆

ratherthanrelyinguponrepresentation;and

thebenefitsfromthecommonsaredistributedwidelyratherthanconcen- ◆

tratedamongafew.

ExcursEXCURSUS:IANDTHEOTHERS 21

ExCurSuS: i aNd ThE OThErS

“The freedom of the one endswhere the freedom of the otherbegins.” This idea implies that we as individuals are isolatedbeings;thatwecomeintoconflictwiththeinterestsofothersifwepursueourowninterests(orthoseofourfamiliesandfriends).However, the freedomof others doesnot necessarilymean theendofourfreedom.Rather,itisaconditionofourfreedom.Thecommonsarenotstatic.Theyareconstantlysubject tochangefrombothlocalconditionsaffectingthecommonsandthemultiplecommonerswhoaremanagingit.Thus,thediversityandvitalityofthecommonssaysalotaboutoursociety.With-outpeopleactivelytakingcareofthecommons,therewouldbenocommonsatall–whichispreciselytheproblemformanyglo-balcollectiveresourcessuchastheatmosphereandtheoceans.Withoutactivecommoning,resourcesthatareconsumedevery-dayaredepleted,andartificiallyrenderedscarceorturnedintono-man’sland.

He who supports the cause of the commons not only benefits himself but also others. He who damages the commons also inflicts damage upon himself.

Theideaofdevelopingourselvesatthecostofothersrevealsitselftobeanillusion.For,thedevelopmentofallisaconditionforthedevelopmentof the individual,andviceversa.Onan individuallevel,weevolvebydoingthingsthatcanbeusefultobothusandothers.Icanonlyprogressifothersalsoprogress.Thisisthedis-tinctionbetweenself-developmentandself-fulfilment.There are somewho develop free software and create freemusic,thereareotherswhoareinvolvedintheenvironmentalmovement,andstillotherscampaignforinterculturalgardensor public spaces. All are developing the commons for them-selves–andforothers.Whatevertheindividualundertakes,hewillachievemore,anddobetter,ifothersarealsoinvolved.

THECOMMONS:WHOSEPROPERTY?22

ThE COMMONS: whOSE prOpErTy?

TO wHOm DOES THE SKY bELOnG? AnD THE STILLnESS? THE LAnD?

Everyindividual–bothinthepresentandinthefuture–hasthesamerighttouseallthatisnotassignabletoanyindividualinparticular.Thismakesitallthemorenecessarytopassontheseassetsjustastheyare,orinanevenbetterstate,tofuturegenerations.

Responsibility for the commons stems from responsibility for a livable future.

Societyatlargemustberesponsibleforcontrollingtheuseoftheforestsandwater,sourcecodeandseeds,urbanspacesandculturaltechniques.For,thecommonswillonlythenbepreservedastheyareifwesucceedinmakingtheuseoftheseresourcestransparentintheinterestofthepublic.

The state or private actors are only (temporary) custodians or trustees of the commons.

Whoshouldbeassignedwhatroletoprotectresources?Responsesvarydependingonone’spoliticalperspective.Whoeverislookingforevidencethatthestateisnotadministeringthecommonsinthepublic interest isboundtofindit– justasheisboundtoalsofindexamplesofthestatebeingagoodtrustee.Whoeverblamesprivate,market-orientedplayersforplunderingcommonresourcesorforunfairlyrestrictingaccesstothemwillnodoubtbeabletociteanendlessnumberofexamples.However,afewinstancesinwhichmarketplayersactasresponsiblecustodiansofthecommons,doexist.And,finally,ifpeoplethemselvesaregivenresponsibility,therewillbestoriesofbothsuccessandfailuretorelateaswell.

Securing the commons is an eternal challenge that has no ready-made solution.

THE nEw GRAb FOR LAnD

TheSouthKoreancompanyDaewooLogisticswishedtolease1.3millionhectaresoffarmlandinMadagascarforseveraldecades.Koreaneededfoodgrains.TheseplanscausedgreatindignationontheAfricanisland,eventuallyresultinginagovernmentcrisisinthespringof2009.Ultimately,whentheheadofgovernment,MarcRavalo-manana,wastoppled,theDaewooprojectdiedanaturaldeath.ButtheMadagascarincidentmadeonethingclear:theattempttograbland,one

of thebasiccommonresources, isnotan isolatedcase.ThegovernmentsofChina,Japan,Malaysia,SaudiArabia,KuwaitandEgyptareall onamassive“shoppingspree”tobuyhugetractsoflandtogrowagriculturalcrops.ResearchundertakenbytheNGOGRAINrevealsthatcountriesasdiverseasUgandaandBrazil,PakistanandUkraineareeitherplanning,orhavealreadybeenfinalised,planstobuyland.EveninSudanwheremillionsgohungry,theSaudicompanyAdcohasleasedover

10,000hectaresoflandtothenorthofKhartoumforUS$95million;itsintentionistogrowwheatandvegetablesforthepeopleofSaudiArabia.Thesesortsofdealsaregivingrisetotalkofneo-colonialism.Thegovernmentsof

thenewlyemergingeconomiesarefuellingthenewlandgrab.Theirpopulationsaregrowing,andconsumingever-increasingquantitiesofprocessedfoodssuchasmeatandmilk.Theyalsofearthatrainfall-deficientareasathomewillonlygetdrierasclimatechangegetsworse.Meanwhile,theagrofuelproductionsectorwantstolayclaimtoever-largerplotsofland.Adramaticstructuralchangeinlandholdingsisunderwayacrosstheglobe,driven

bytherapidpaceoftechnologicaldevelopmentandemergingmarkets.Forexample,syntheticbiologypromisesaworldinwhichglucose,anagro-basedproduct,canbeextracted, fermented and processed into high-grade rawmaterial for the pharma-ceuticalandchemical industries.Companieshopeto turnself-replicating synthetic

“Allmenareoriginally…inrightfulpossessionofthesoil…theyhavearighttobewherevernature…hasplacedthem.Thispossession…iscollectiveinnatureowingtotheunityofallplacesonthesurfaceoftheearth,thisglobe….”IMMANUELKANT

THECOMMONS:WHOSEPROPERTY? 23

microbesintolive“chemicalfactories.”Ifsuccessful,this innovationwill infutureconsumeenormousquantitiesofbiomass,whichuntilnowhavenotbeenutilisedorbeenavailabletocommunities.Theywillmakemarketproductsoutofresourcesthatotherwisewouldremain in thecommons.Withthis, theenclosureof thecommonstakesonanew,moredisturbingdimensionindeed.

ForImmanuelKant,whoisideologicallyabovesuspicion,landshouldbetreatedascommonproperty.Butwhatexactlydoesitmeaniflandisconsideredacommons?Oursocietycanhardlyconceiveascenariowherebylandwouldbeavailableonlyforshort-termusagerightsratherthanlong-term,absoluterights.Evenso,suchathoughtcan-notbebrushedasideasbeingtaboo,foritistruethat:

Land is limited in its availability; the rights of use of individuals are limited by the rights of use retained by all the “original, rightful owners” – i.e., the commoners.

Ownershiprightsalonecannotdecidehowthecommonswillbemanaged.Afterall,thepriorquestionishowandbywhomownershiprightswereestablishedinthefirstplace.Whodefinestherulesofthegame?Whodecidesiftheruleswillhavefairandresponsibleoutcomesforthosepeopleaffectedbythem?Whoenforcestheirobserv-ance?Whataretheconditionsforensuringthatthecommonswillbeavailableinplen-tyeventomorrow?Thereisnouniversalremedy,butthereareneverthelessprinciplesthatsupportalifeinwhichthecommonsthrive.Thereisonesimpleprinciplethatmaybederivedfromourrightsofuse:

Private ownership rights to the commons that are exclusive, indefinite and completely beyond the reach of others, are not permissible.

PROTECTInG mICKEY mOuSE

TheAmericanentertainerSonnyBono,whowentontobecomeaU.S.Representative,wantedtoexpandthetermsofcopyrightprotectionbytwentyyears.AfterBonodied,hiswidowcontinuedthiscrusadewhenshetookoverhiscongressionalseat.ItwasnotconstitutionaltomakecopyrighttermsperpetualbecausetheU.S.Constitutiondeclaresthattheymustbeofa“limitedterm.”Thispromptedthefilmindustrylob-byistJackValentitopropose,somewhatjokingly,thatcopyrighttermsshouldlastfor“foreverlessoneday.”

In1998,theU.S.Congressnonethelessextendedthevarioustermsofcopyrightpro-tectionby20years.Forworksproducedbyindividualauthors,thismeantthatcopy-rightsnowlastforthelifetimeofanauthorplus70years;forcorporatecopyrightholders, protection lasts for95 years.TheSonnyBonoCopyrightTerm Extension

MadagascarPHOTO:FLICK-USERLUCLEGAY

“Evenanentiresociety,anation,orforthatmatterallcontemporarysocietiestakentogetherarenotownersoftheearth.Theyaremerelyitsoccupants,beneficiaries,andmustthereforeplaytheroleofbonipatresfamilias(goodfamilyfathers)toleavetheearthbehindinabetterstateforfuturegenerations.”KARLMARX,DASKAPITAL,VOL.3


Act–asitwascalled,inhonourofthedepartedentertainer–lockeduptensofthou-sands ofworks from the1920s and1930s thatwould otherwise have entered thepublicdomainandbefreeforeveryonetouse.AmongtheworkslockedupbythenewlawwereErnestHemingway’sworksandGeorgeandIraGershwin’smusic.BecauseDisney’skeymotivationwastokeepitsMickeyMousecharacterfromenteringthepublicdomain,criticsdubbedthelawthe“MickeyMouseProtectionAct.”

EricEldred,whohadstartedafree-accessonlinelibraryofpublic-domainbooks,filedaformalconstitutionalchallengetotheact.Hearguedthatthelawviolatedthe“lim-itedterms”provisionofthecopyrightclauseintheU.S.Constitution.However,theSupremeCourtstruckdownthecomplaintin2003,andEldredlostthecase.

Thestoryofthe“MickeyMouseProtectionAct”canbegeneralised.Inrecentyears,theentertainmentindustries,publishersandothercompanieshavegreatlyexpandedthescopeofcopyrightprotectionattheexpenseofauthorsandthepublic.Thetypicalpatternhasbeentotakefromthecommons,assertstrictproprietarycontroloverthe“newwork,”andthenpreventthoseworksfromenteringthecommonsofthepublicdomainagain,wheretheymightbere-used.

WaltDisney’ssuccessresttoalargeextentondrawinguponthewealthoffairytalesandlegends,andfromclassicliterarycharactersthathadenteredthepublicdomain.TheDisneyCompany,andafewothers,“remixed”theoriginalfolkcharactersofSnowWhite,theLittleMermaid,PeterPanandAliceinWonderland,amongmanyothers,infusingthemwithfreshlifeandusingtheirenormousmarketpowertoappropriatethemasitsown.Itwasalucrativebusinessmodeltherestedondrawingfromacom-monculturalheritage.Yetratherthan“giveback”tosocietybylettingthosechar-actersre-enterthepublicdomain(aftertheinitialinvestmentshadbeenrecoveredmanytimesover),Disneywasdeterminedtoextenditslucrativecontroloverthesecharactersbyobtainingtwentymoreyearsofcopyrightprotection.

A society needs to have confidence in the power of infinite creativity – the power to create new figures and stories. Creative people depend on the possibility of creating freely while drawing from the wealth of cultural commons. Our culture remains an inexhaustible reservoir of stories, images, music and much more, if the access to these assets is not blocked or restricted. Culture is dependent on “fresh investments” being made without private rights to cultural goods being held on to unreasonably – “forever less one day”.

“DisneyInfiniteCopyright”-SymbolWIKIMEDIACOMMONS


Irrespective of whether the assets are material or immaterial in nature, whethertheyformpartof thenatural,culturalorsocialsphere,bothover-exploitationandunder-exploitationmaybeavoidedbymeasuringtheformofownershipagainsttwoconditions:First,everytimethecommonsisused,itmustnotbeabused,overusedor ◆

destroyed;andSecond,noonewhoisentitledtousethecommonsorhasbeenhistorically ◆

dependentonit,shouldbedeniedaccessortherightofusingit.

Recommended literature Strengthen the Commons. Now! http://www.boell.de/downloads/ Almmendemanifest _ engl _ screen.pdf

“IfIseefatherthanothers,itisbecauseIstandontheshoulderofgiants.”ISAACNEWTON,INALETTERTOROBERTHOOKE


COmmOn PROPERTY IS DIFFEREnT FROm THE COmmOnS

Commonpropertyisaformofcollectiveproperty.Asopposedtoprivateproperty,assetsthatformpartofcommonpropertybelongtonotjustonebutmanypeople.Thesecouldbemembersofcooperativesorevenjoint-stockcompanies.Asinthecaseofprivateproperty,commonpropertybarspeoplewhoarenotco-owners,fromaccessingandusingtheproperty.Thisisquitedifferentfromasituationinwhichnooneisdeniedaccess,whichisoftenknownasan“openaccess”regime.

THE COMMONS: WHOSE PROPERTY? 26

HOW SOMETHING THAT IS NOT SCARCE BECOMES SCARCE A STUDENT’S EXPERIENCE WITH MODERN COPYRIGHTS

I was researching on the Net for a paper on the commons and chanced upon something useful. I was able to download some texts quite easily and incorporate appropriate passages into my draft paper. And then I came across an interest-ing text which could only be accessed for a fee or if I read it in a library that had already secured rights to it.

“That’s not a problem,” I thought to myself. The university library is acces-sible on the Net, and naturally its catalogue too. And sure enough, the library catalogue confirmed that the article was “available in electronic form.” But when I attempted to download it, I got an error message: ”This article can only be viewed within the library.” Why is that? I am startled.

So I set out for the state library by bus, taking almost an hour to get there. Once there, I found the article I was looking for in the online catalogue. But then another message appears on the screen: “The article from the anthology sought is presently being viewed by another user. The library however has only acquired a single anthology and, as per the principle of accessoriness, is only allowed to give electronic access to that many articles at the same time as it has rights to the pur-chased copy. We do not see an exception to the rule in your case.”

Once again I was out-foxed. True, I did not understand what “accessoriness” meant, but I did sense what the implications were. I had to wait. But why? Had I not learnt in an economics course recently that electronic resources are non-rival in use? My using them does not impinge on someone else using the same resources.

All of a sudden I realized what it means when such things as a text are restrict-ed and made exclusive, in contravention of the economic theory. But a coffee break is always good …and after coffee, I finally have a free hand!

When I finally get the article on the screen, however, it is quite long. So I want to save it on my thumb-drive so that I can read it carefully later. I try the “Save as” command, and for the third time I am startled. This time I am told that the text cannot be saved.

With no other option left, I begin to read the text. I next try to find out where exactly the term “commons” appears in the text, because that was my primary concern. Result: “The search item was not found.” That’s strange, I think, because this is a specialised paper. I try again by entering a common word. Again: “Item not found.” The search function does not work for the entire text!

The public library as a Faraday cage.PHOTO: FlICkR-uSER SlAB MAgAzINE


Exasperatedbythewholeexercise,Idecidetocopyandtransfertomythumb-driveonlyoneimportantsentencewhichIwanttouseasaquotation.ButevenhereIdon’thaveachance.I’mfinallyconfrontedwiththecrucialpieceofinfor-mation:“ThisisaDRM-protectedPDF,allrightsreservedforthepublisher.Read-onlytext.Note-takingpermitted.”Ihadnotexpectedsuchtechnicalsafeguardsinapubliclibrary.Thisleftme

withthefollowingoptions:eitherIspendthenexttwohoursinfrontofthemoni-torandexcerptfromthetext,aswasthepracticeforcenturiesintheworldofGutenberg500yearsago.OrI leavethereadingroomanddismissthetextasunimportant.Thethirdoptionistobuythearticleonlineathomefromthepub-lisherfor30euros.ThisoptionIdismisssinceIwouldtherebyonlybesecuringalicenceformypersonaluseonmypersonalcomputer.Ohyes,there’ssomethingelse:protectionofthearticlethroughDigitalRightsManagement(DRM)isinmyowninterest,thenoticetellsme.Idecidetomakedowithoutthearticle,butIat leastwantedtoknowwhy

thingswere as theywere.Until then I had associated copyrightswith the tus-sleovertheuseofmusic,videos,gamesandpopularliterature.Butwhataboutresearch,teachingandlearning?Article5oftheBasicLawcametomymind:

Article 5 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz):

(1) Every person shall have the right to freely express and disseminate his opinions through speech, writing and image, and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources [...]

(3) Art and scholarship, research and teaching shall be free […]

Apubliclibrarythathaspaidforthebooksinitscollectionisgenerallyaccessible–yetinthiscaseIdidnothaveunhinderedaccess.AndhadIalsomisunderstoodthepointaboutacademicfreedom?WhenIturntomyprofessortohavethisclarified,IlearnthattherightsguaranteedbytheBasicLawandtherightsexplicitlystatedinaspecificlawwithlimitationsandexceptionsaretwoverydifferentthings.MycasewasgovernedbytheCopyrightAct,andthislawfirstandforemost

protects thecopyrightholderor theone towhomcopyrightholderhas soldorgivenrights,suchasapublisherorestate.Theseexpansivecopyrightrightscouldcertainlybelimitedinordertoservethepublicinterest–iflaw-makersweretosodecide.Inprincipleitispossibletomakeitlegalforlibrariestoprovideaccesstoelectronicmaterialswithoutthepermissionofthecopyrightholder.Myprofes-sordrewmyattentiontoArticle52boftheCopyrightAct,whichregulatesthe“reproduction ofmaterial in electronic readingplaces in libraries […].”ThereIfound,explicitstatutorylanguagethathadpreventedmefromworkinginthelibraryasIwaswonttoontheNet.Honestly,Idon’tunderstandit.Whydoourparliamentarianspassalawthat

makesitmoredifficultforstudentsandprofessorstoaccessknowledgeandinfor-mationthanintheageofGutenberg?Particularlygiventhefactthattheproduc-tionofthisinformationgenerallytakesplacewithpublicfunds!Ithinkthiscallsforaconstitutionalchallenge.Atanyrate,Ihaveonedefinitepropositionformypaper:

Whatever has been public or financed with public funds must remain accessible to the public.

Awell-developedknowledgecommonsistothinking,producingorhealingwhatairistobreathing.”ATTAC-BASISTEXT15–WISSENSALLMENDE


wAR AGAInST FISH

Itistheyear2048.Globaltunafishstockshadcollapsed40yearsago.Thisisalsothecasewithone-thirdofallcommerciallyexploitedfishspecies.Fishingisnotworththeeffortanymore.Moreover,bottomtrawling–amethodoffishingsocrudeitisequivalenttoclearingtheforeststogetthegame–hasinflictedsuchdamagetothebottomoftheseasthatitwillbefeltforcenturies.Althoughfishermen and politicians involved with fishery had been alarmed since the1990s,achangeofapproachinvariablyfailedtomaterialiseduetotheshort-sightednessoftheplayersinvolved.Meanwhile,asexpertshadprophesiedwaybackin2006,commerciallyexploitablefishstockshavestarteddepletingallovertheworld.Theseasaredominatedbyjellyfishwhichnolongerhaveanynaturalenemies.

Fortwodecades,tourismstrugglestosurviveonthecoasts.Itfinallygrindstoahaltinthe2030s.Millionsoffishermenaswellaspeopleemployedinthefish-processingindustryandinthecoastalareahavelosttheirjobs.Socialtensionsintheseregionsareontherise.In justa fewdecades, intensively farmedaquacultures–originallyconsid-

eredanalternative–hadlaidwastetoentirestretchesofthecoast.Thesoiliscontaminatedwiththeexcrementofcultivatedfishandantibiotics;itissalineanduseless.Vyingfortheremainingfishinggroundsextendingtoadepthofupto3,000metersare two international companieswith theirhigh-tech trawl-ers.Theirmonopolyovertherareandexpensivedelicacyisthreatenedonlybyarmedillegalships.Theseshipswerecapturedbypiratesattheheightofthecrisis,justwhentheUNhadmadealastdesperateattempttostemuncontrolledhigh-seafishingbeforethecoastsofthedevelopingcountries,andreduceglo-balcatches.Theconsequencesforpeopleallovertheworldaredramatic.Atpresent,the

basicsupplyofproteinforone-sixthoftheworld’spopulationisseverelythreat-ened.Hungerrevoltsaretheorderof theday;anever-increasingnumberofpeoplearemigrating elsewhere.Thewaragainstfishhas turned intoawaragainstpeople.

FishingtrawlerPHOTO:FLICKR-USERMARITIMUS


CHECKERED LIFE On SEA AnD LAnD

Itistheyear2048.Fishingpolicyunderwentaspectacularchangein2012,theyearwhentheEU’scommonfishingpolicywasreformed.Withinasingledec-ade,thesizeoftheglobalcatchof90milliontonsatthetimewasreducedbyonehalf.ThequotarecommendationsmadebytheInternationalCouncilfortheExplorationoftheSeas(ICES)wereregularlyundercut,foroverexploitationoffishstocksworldwidehadhorrifiedthepopulationandcausedanuproar.Politi-cianswhowantedtocontinuethesamepolicieswerewidelydenounced.Con-sumersboycottedalmostallproductsthatdidnotbearthesealoftheMarineStewardshipCouncil.Halfthenumberoffishingvessels–some6,000ships–werede-commissionedandthefuelconsumptionoftherestofthefleetdrasti-callyreduced.Whoeverengagedinbottomtrawlinghadtorelinquishhisfishinglicence.Theallocationofavailablefishingquotasdependedonfishermenmeet-ingstringentcriteriaforthecatch.Preferencewasgiventofishingenterprisesandcooperativesthatrespectedthenaturalreproductivecyclesoffish,showedlittlebycatchandguaranteedfreshproducts.Otherissuesthatplayedaroleingrantingquotaallocationstofleetsincludedthenumberofjobsandthedegreeofjobsecuritytheyprovided,theirenergyefficiency,andtheirwillingnesstoreinvestprofitsinordertostrengthenthecommunity.Fish piracy has been contained thanks to international cooperation. Pro-

tectedmarineareasincludefishspawninggrounds.Thelastoftheindustrialaquaculturesdisappearedattheendofthe‘20s.Whatfollowedwasaboomintechnologyforinnovativeaquaculture–withclosedloops,solarenergyandfishmeal-free feed.Even in touristareas,only fresh localfishareserved inrestaurants.That’sthewaythingsaredone!Whereverfishstocksfaceathreat,thereisabanonsales.Fishermenaretrainedinsustainablefishingmethods,particularly in low season.Theyarepaid formaintenanceworkordeployedfor re-fitting thehigh-techfleet. In thedevelopingcountries, coastalfishingandsustainablepisci-cultureonceagainenjoybright,long-termprospects.Thepressureofmigrationislower.

TakeninMadagascarBYJONATHANTALBOTWORLDRESOURCESINSTITUTE

STRENGTHENINGTHECOMMONS:IDEAS,INITIATIVES,INSTITUTIONS30


Thereisnoeasyremedy.Prudentmanagementofthecommonsdependsonsev-eralfactors:

The character of the resources: ◆ Accesstoresourcessuchaswater,forestsandtheatmosphere–whosequalitydeterioratewithuse–mustberestrictedinsomefashion.Ontheotherhand,resourcessuchaslanguage,knowledgeandtraditions–whichbecomemorevaluablewhenusedbymany–arebestman-agedthroughopenaccessrules. Geographic location and scale: ◆ Acommonsrequiresdifferentmanagementrulesdepartmentonwhetheritinvolvesalocal,regionalorglobalsystem.Thevillagecommunityisresponsibleforthevillagewell;thepeoplewhouselakesandriversandvariousregionalandsupraregionalauthoritiescanoverseearegionalwatershed;andtheglobalcommunityandinternationalorganisa-tionsareneededforglobalwatermanagementandtheclimate.Thereareonlyafewglobalnaturalcommons–theoceans,theclimate,globalwatermanagement,thebio-diversityoftheearth,amongothers–buttheseareparticularlyimportantforthesurvivalofmankind.Theproblemsassociat-edwiththesecommonsareascomplexastheyarebecausedirectcommunica-tion,confidence-buildingandreliabilityattheinternationallevelarefarmoredifficulttoachievethanatthelevelofavillagecommunity.Allthesame,glo-balcommonsareindispensable.Managingtheglobalculturalcommonsontheotherhandseemsfareasier.Thisisparticularlytrueofknowledgeineducationandresearchbecausetheproduction,disseminationanduseofknowledgeisinanycaseincreasinglyorganisedattheinternationallevel.ThisisoneofthereasonsforthesuccessoftheOpenAccessmovementworldwide. ◆ Experience and participation:TheindigenouscommunitiesoftheAmazonhavepreservedtheprimevalforestsasaglobalcommonsforcenturiesthroughtheiractiveparticipationandexperienceinworkingwiththeforests.Itiswhytheyareseenashavingspecialrightsofuse. ◆ Historical, cultural and natural conditions:Areaswhereanactiveandvibrant(state)citizenryhasevolvedwillhavecommonsinstitutionsthataredifferentfromthoseinareaswhererespectforfundamentalhumanrightsisstillbeingfoughtfor–justlikewatermanagementpracticesindrought-strickenareasdifferfromthoseinareasofheavyrainfall.

STrENGThENiNG ThE COMMONS: idEaS ,

iN i T iaTivES , iNSTi TuTiONS

Whereverpeoplevieforwaterandland,fishinggroundsandforests,noonecanbehaveasthoughhewereinalandofplenty.Butifresourceusemustbelimitedandshared,howcancooperationbeachieved?Howcanweensurethatpeoplethinkofothersandoftomorrowinthecourseoftheiraction?Researchonthecommonsprovidessomeanswers.Itshowsthatpeople tendto

over-exploitcommonresourcesiftheydonotknoweachotheranddonotcommuni-cateregularlywitheachother.Butgroupsthatcommunicate,coordinateandnegoti-atewitheachothercanoftenachieveoptimalresultsinresourcemanagement.Theover-exploitationofresourcescanbeavoidedbybuildingtrust.Itisthemost

difficultyetmostreliablewayofensuringthateveryone’sconcernsareappreciatedandacknowledged;thetrustthatresultshelpsagroupovercomeitsownself-imposedlimitations.

Protecting, creating and expanding the commons must be rewarding and do more for one’s reputation than an impressive career or a fat bank balance.

STRENGTHENINGTHECOMMONS:IDEAS,INITIATIVES,INSTITUTIONS 31

OPEn ACCESS – THE bEnEFITS OFFERED bY THE COmmOnS FOLLOw A SImPLE PRInCIPLE

Openaccess is increasinglybecomingreality in scientificresearch.TheBerlinDec-larationof2004representsonemilestoneinthisdevelopment.Itdescribesthetwopreconditionstobefulfilledbyopenaccesspublications:

Openaccesscontributionsmustsatisfytwoconditions:1.“Theauthor(s)andrightholder(s)ofsuchcontributionsgrant(s)toallusersafree,irrevocable,worldwiderightofaccess[…]andalicensetocopy,use,distribute,trans-mitanddisplaytheworkpubliclyandtomakeanddistributederivativeworks,inanydigitalmediumforanyresponsiblepurpose,subjecttoproperattributionofauthor-shipaswellastherighttomakesmallnumbersofprintedcopiesfortheirpersonaluse.

2.Acompleteversionoftheworkandallsupplementalmaterials,includingacopyof thepermissionas statedabove, inanappropriate standardelectronic format isdeposited(andthuspublished)inatleastoneonlinerepositoryusingsuitabletechni-calstandards(suchastheOpenArchivedefinitions)thatissupportedandmaintainedbyanacademicinstitution,scholarlysociety,governmentagency,orotherwell-estab-lishedorganizationthatseekstoenableopenaccess,unrestricteddistribution,inter-operability,andlong-termarchiving.“

Theseprincipleswereandstillarerevolutionary.Knowledgeproducers,whoareatthesametimeusersofscientificresearch,haveresortedtoself-helpmethodstocombatcopyrightrestrictionsandtheinflatedpricesofscientificjournals.Thegrowingworldofopenaccessjournalsistransformingthepublishingworld,makingitpossibleforanyonetoaccess,copyandshareworksinperpetuity.Asaresultofopenaccess,agreat deal of research that the publishing industry previous acquired through con-tracts, inwhichauthors usually surrendered their copyrights to publishers, is nowbeingre-directedinsteadtothecommons.Openaccessdoesnotproduceres nulliusbutres communes(seep.9).Therule

thatapplieshereisclearandsimple:theauthorsofthepublishedknowledgedonothavetheirpersonalrightstoaccesstheirworkscircumscribed.However,theirworkscanbefreelyusedanddevelopedbyeverymanandwoman.

http.//oa.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/Berliner _ Erklaerung _dt _ Version _ 07-2006.pdf

◆ Reliable institutions:Stateinstitutionscanserveastrustees,arbitersandpartnerswithcommons,aswellaslobbyistsattheinternationallevel.How-ever,theycanassertthemselvesinthesewaysonlywhentheyhavedemocraticlegitimacy,aretransparentandrecognisedbythepeople.Corruptorfragilestates–orforthatmatter,governmentsandinstitutionsthatgiveprioritytoshort-termeconomicinterestsoverallelse–willhardlyprovetobeuseful. ◆ The state of technological development:Technologyopensupnewdimensionsinthedevelopmentofthecommons,justasitcancontributetotheirscarcity.Whateverwaspreviouslybecomingscarce–suchastheavailabilityofelectro-magneticspectrum–cannowbemademoreplentifulthroughdigitalisation.Anopenspectrumplatformisnowpossible.Butontheotherhand,thebusi-nessownersofnewtechnologiesfrequentlyseektocreateartificialscarcityforsoftwareandcontentthatcouldotherwisebemadeavailabletoallwithouttheirqualitybeingcompromised.Justaslandwasearlierenclosedbybarbedwireandfences,copyprotectionmechanismsattempttoerectnewbarriersaroundknowledge,ideasandculturetoday.

As this section suggests, the management of the commons is a complex social process that entails something other than regulating the relationship between the state and the citizen, and between the buyer and the seller.


AnotherimportantaspectoftheBerlinDeclarationonOpenAccessisthatitdoesnotapplyonlytoscientificpublicationsbutextendstoallculturalworks.Thisdoesnotmeanthatcreativeindividualswhoaredependentonincomefromtheirworkswouldhave to forfeit theircopyrightprotectionorreleaseall that theyhaveproduced tothecommons.ButmajorresearchorganisationssuchastheDeutscheForschungsge-meinschaft(GermanResearchFoundation–DFG)haverightlyenoughdrawnatten-tiontothedifferencebetweenworksproducedinapublicenvironmentorwithpublicfundsandtheworksofindependentartistsandjournalists,whichusedtobeprivatelyfinanced.ButeventhelattermustdeliberatewhethertheyarenotbetteroffusingthepotentialoftheInternetratherthancontinuingtorelyonthegenerallysmallshareofincomeaccruingtothemfromcommercialpublishingmodelsofexploitation.

Openaccessisabenefit-providingparadigmforthecommonsintheelectronicfields.However,itneedstobestructuredinordertopreservethepersonalrightsoftheorigi-nalauthor,whichinclude:therighttorecognition/attributionofauthorship; ◆

therighttodecidewhether,whenandhowtopublish;and ◆

therighttopreventharmtotheartisticintegrityoftheirwork(arightrecognized ◆

underEuropeancopyrightlaws).

Asattractiveasopenaccessmaybe,commercialpublisherstendtoopposeit,andthereforeitsactualimplementationmustbefoughtfor.Whoistobearthecoststhatarisefromopenaccess(evenopenaccesspublishingrequiresediting,translating,webhosting and/or printing)?Could scientific institutions commit their authors,whoseworkshadbeensupportedbypublicfunds,todeposittheseinapublicrepository(inadditiontocommercialpublicationoftheirworks)orashortwhileaftercommercialpublication?Oughttheretobecommercialpublicationofanyscientificworksfinancedbypublicinstitutions?Aparadigmofchangealwayshasadifficultbirth.But the ideaofopenaccess

isreachingmaturityandcannolongerbeblocked.Moreoftheworld’sknowledgewillsurelybecomefreelyavailableinthenearfuture.Knowledgewillbecomewhatitalwaysoughttohavebeen:acommons.Openaccessmustnotprecludecommercialuseof thisknowledge.Only, inour

scenario, itwould no longer be a case of the users of commercial rights grantinglicencesforusetosociety,butinsteadsocietygrantingcommercialuserslicencesforrestricteduse.Itgoeswithoutsaying–inlinewiththeproven“riparianprinciple”inwaterlaw:theremustalwaysbeasufficientflowoffreelyavailableknowledgeforalltous.Weareall“riparians”whenitcomestoknowledge,softwareandculture.

THE RIPARIAn PRInCIPLE

Theriparianprincipleholdsthatwhoeverownslandonwhichthereisafloworreser-voirofwatermaynotcurtailthelegalrightsofuseoftheotherusers.Shouldtherebeinsufficientwaterforall,thentherightsofusearegenerallyallottedaccordingtothesizeofthelandholdings.Theserightsofuseforwatercannotbeallottedontheirownbutonlyincombinationwiththecorrespondinglandholding.Inaddition,watermay not be exported from the correspondingwater catchment area. TheprinciplehasitsoriginsintheEnglishcommonlaw.InCanada,AustraliaandtheeasternpartoftheUSA,theseriparianprincipleshaveshapedmodernlegislation.

“RiverDochart”PHOTO:MACIEKLEW,WIKIMEDIACOMMONS


Thechallengeofeconomicpolicyistoaddressaparadoxofthecommons:thefreerandmore productive the commons, the greater the economic gains accruing fromusing them.Historyhasshownthat institutionalagreementscansuccessfully limittheuseofnature inorder toprotect thepublicgood.For instance,cattle insomecommonswereallowedtograzeaccordingtocertainrulesandcycles;logginginsomeareaswasrestrictedintheupperreachesoftheriversinordertopreventdownstreampollution.Suchrulesexisteventoday,butglobalisationhasmadethetaskfarmorecomprehen-siveandcomplex.Publicwelfaredemandsthattheinterplaybetweenmanandthebiosphereberestrictedandreorganisedinsuchamannerthatnaturalecosystemsarenotdegradedandsocialconflictsarenotaggravated.Basicallytherearethreechal-lengesthatneedtobeaddressed:

Stabilisingtheexploitationofrawmaterialatarenewablelevelandmaintaining ◆

emissionsatnon-harmfullevels;Restrictinglandusetolevelsthatdonotharmothercreatures;and ◆

Re-structuringsocialrelationshipsinsuchawaythatdistinctgroupsofpeopledo ◆

notliveattheexpenseofothers.

Todate,therehasbeennouniformtypeofinstitutiontoregulatepeople’srelationshipwithnature.Aswiththeothercommons,naturehasnooneespousingitsneedsandinterestsinthepoliticalsphereeither.

The commons have neither a seat nor a voice in the opinion-building and decision-making bodies.

Thereis,tobesure,bothnationalandinternationalenvironmentallaw,buttherulesthatemergeareinvariablytheresultofanunequalstrugglebetweeninterestgroups.Theshort-terminterestsofthepresentgenerationdominate.Timeandagain,thepro-tectionofecosystemsislefttotallyunaddressed.Hencetheneedtocreatenewtypesofindependent,commons-basedinstitutionstoprotectnaturalresources.

New and innovative institutions for the commons are necessarily as diverse as the commons themselves.

The American author and entrepreneur Peter Barnes has suggested the establish-mentof“commonstrusts”whichwouldberesponsible for the long-termhealthofthecommons.Astrustees,theseorganisationswoulddeterminethelimitstowhichpresentandfuturegenerationswouldbeallowedtousenaturalresources.Thetrustswouldchargeforlicencestousethecommonsandensurethattherevenuecollectedwouldbenefitcitizensascollectiveowners,includingfuturegenerations.Withcom-monstrusts,commonpropertywouldhaveastrongerlegalstanding.Usingresourcesofthecommonswould,incertaininstances,comewithapricetag,likeusingother’sservicesorpropertyintheoneortheotherway.Trustscouldconceivablybeusedformanagingfishstocksandforestlands,soil,seeds,groundwaterandmetalsaswellasCO2emissionsandotherpollutants.Theycouldalsofunctionattheregional,nationalandgloballevels.Withinstitutionssuchasanoceanstrust,aseedtrust,asoiltrust,aclimatetrustorforthatmatteranadvertisingtrust(tomanagepublicadvertisingspaces),barrierscouldbeerectedtolimitfierceinvestordemandsforcapitalaccumu-lation.Capital’shegemonyovernaturecouldbetamed.


A CLImATE TRuST – OR THE SKY bELOnGS TO ALL OF uS

Themodelofaskytrustoraclimatetrustexemplifieshowacommonstrustcouldwork.InitiallyproposedfortheUnitedStates,thisconceptisbasedonthebasicprin-ciplethatallcitizensareco-ownersoftheatmosphereor,morespecifically,thatpartof theatmospherewhich“belongs”to theUSAinproportion to itspopulation.Tobeginwith,anupperlimitisfixedforpermissibleCO2emissions.Therightofuseisauctionedinquantitativeunits,andthewinnersoftheauctionsreceivepermitstopol-lutespecifiedamounts.Thepermitscostmorewhenpollutionlevelsneedtobemoreseverelycurtailed–thatis,aslongastheatmosphereisbeingpollutedbyanever-increasingnumberofpeopleandbygrowingdemandsforenergy.Aspermitcostsrise,thepricesofproductsandservicesincrease.Atthesametime,thepermitauctionsraiseasignificantamountofmoney,whichisthenevenlydistributedtoallthecitizens,afterdeductingtheamountnecessaryforadministeringthecommons.

Whoeverconsumesalot,drivesacarorflies,paysmore(inhigherpricesforcarbon-basedgoodsandservices)thanhereceives;andwhoeverconsumesmoderatelyandsavesenergygetsbacktheadditionalamounthehadtospendormayevencomeoutahead.Thus,theskytrustisamechanismforsocialfairness.Low-incomegroupsandthepoorbenefitbecausetheyuselittleenergy.Bycontrast,luxuryorindiscriminateconsumptionisheavilytaxed.Thegreatvirtueoftheskytrustmodelisthatittriestoprotectstheatmosphericcommonswhileatthesametimeaddressingthedistribu-tionalconflictsassociatedwiththat.Thecommonsdonotfallfromthesky.Theycanbere-createdandexpandedany

timethatpeoplewant.Presentedinthefollowingpagesareotherideasforprotectingcommonswhoseimplementationrestsonlyonsociety’swillingnesstoinitiatechange.Wecantalkmeaningfullyoftheintelligentmanagementofthecommonsonlyifthecommonsareperceivedanddesignatedassuch.Buttoooftenwebecomeconsciousofacommonsonlywhenwesensehowmuchwearedependentonit,thatis,whenthemeansatourdisposal(moneyorpower)failtosubstituteforourcommons.

Recommended literature WuppertalInstitut:Zukunftsfähiges Deutschland in einer globalisierten Welt,Frankfurt2008,p.285f.PeterBarnes:Capitalism 3.0 A Guide to Re-claiming the Commons.Berrett-KoehlerPublish-ers(November1,2006)


ADVERTISInG nEEDS TO bE KEPT wIITHIn bOunDS

Advertisingdisturbsanddestroys.Itproducesnoiseandwaste.The“seamysideofsurpluscapitalism,”asPeterBarnescallsit,inundatesourmailboxesandourimagi-nation.Initially,wepayforitwithourattention,thenwithourmoneywhilesocietyislefttobearitsenvironmentalandsocialcosts.“Nodictatorshiphaseverbeenasgood-humouredasthisone,”observesthejournalistHannoRauterberg.“Weareassailedwithobjects,perfumes,spams,sounds–itisaveritableassaultonoursenses.”Uptotheageoffive,Americanchildrenhaveonanaverageseen100,000TVads.

Everyyear,33kgsofpromotionalpamphlets land in theaverageGermanmailbox.Thebulkofthesethenfindtheirwaydirectlyintothegarbagebin.Yearafteryear,theproductionofjunkmailconsumes2.7milliontrees,1.157millionkWhofelectricityand4.62billionlitresofwater,withoutproducinganythinginreturn.Advertisementsdonotjusteatintoournaturalresources;theyalsopercolateinto

ourfreementalspace.WecanpassovertheminnewspapersandwecanturnofftheTV–which iswhyeveryconceivablepublicspacehasbeenturned intoadvertisingspacetoday.Buildings,squaresandentirelandscapesserveasbillboards.Municipali-tiesandinstitutionsofallhuesselltheirmostvisiblepublicspacestotheadvertisingindustry–tofilluptheirmeagrecoffersortofinanceotherprojects.Althoughthismeans that revenue fromadvertising could be used for charitable purposes, thereisnowayofescapingtheassaultonthesensesandthecommercialisationofpublicspace.IndividualswardoffadswithRobinsonlists,spamfilters,TVadvertisementblockersorwithasimple“noadsplease.”Somecountriesbanadsduringchildren’sprogrammes.TheU.S.statesofArkansasandMainearediscussingbillsfortaxationofadvertising.MetropolitancitiessuchasMoscow,ParisandSaoPaolohaveimposedbansagainst“opticaldesecration”bygiantbillboards.Thatisagoodthing,forourattentionshouldbeours.Inordertodissuadepeople

fromlitteringourlivingspacesandspoilingourleisuretime,anyonewhowishestouseourspaceandtimeforadvertisingpurposesshouldbemadetopay.Thus,thegreaterthenumberofads,themoretheadvertisingcompanieswillhavetopay.

Fiduciariescouldfixupperlimitsforthepermissible“quantityoftotaldisturbance”andselltradableadvertisingpermitstocompanieswishingtoadvertise.Inthisway,ourpsychologicalcostswillgetdirectlyreflected in thebalancesheetsofadagen-cies.Theideabehindthisissimple:Feweradvertisements–moreinnerpeace–moremoneyforad-freechannelsandforrevivingpublicspacesthatarefreeofads.

“Ourintellectualenvironment,too,isacommonslikeairandwater.Wemustprotectitfromattemptstogainarbitraryaccesstoit.”KALLELASN

“Billboard”PHOTO:FLICKR-USERSIMONSCOTT


FOREST COFFEE – A SmALL REVOLuTIOn

“Kaffa’s forestsarebleeding!”So saysMesfinTekeleofSouthernEthiopia,wherehugejungletractsarestillhometoarichvarietyofbio-species:averitableparadise.Buttheforester’sassessmentoftheprevailingsituationisgloomy:between1980and2000alone,43%ofthegreenbeltdisappeared.Sincethen,expertsreckonthatthedestructionoftheBongaForesthasonlyfurtherintensified.ThejungleofKaffaisoneofEthiopia’slastsurvivingjungles:Asrecentlyasinthe1970s,40%ofthecountrywascoveredbythickvegetation;today,onlyabout2%is.Itisnotonlyonaccountoftheirbeautyanddiversitythattheseforestsaresopre-

cious;theyarealsoafundamentalresourceforalllifeandalleconomicactivityintheregion.Andwhatismore,theseforests—throughaconstantcycleofwaterabsorp-tionandcondensation–haveacoolingeffectontheclimateoftheregion.Theysupplythefertilefarmlandsofthesouthwesternhighlandswithhumidity,whilethemoorsand swampsof the lowlands feed theGojebRiverwhichflows into theRiverOmo,Africa’s lifeline.Nottomentiontheamountofcarbonthat isabsorbedbythelushfloraandforestsoil.

Preserving this wilderness is a question of survival not only for the indigenous peoples and farmers who live in and off it. It is both a local and a global commons for which the international community is responsible.

Kaffa’streesaredisappearingbecausecompanieswanttoclearthelandforplanta-tions.Theyarealsodisappearingbecausefamiliesgrowormigratetothearea,andneedlandforcultivation.Whocanblamethemwantingtosurvive?Butthedestruc-tionoftheforestalsomeansthedestructionofasourceoflifeofdirectsignificancetothepeopleoftheregion,fortheyeatitsfruitsanduseitsmedicinalherbs,honeyandwood.ThequestionthatisposedinKaffa–asintheCongo,IndonesiaandtheAmazon–

is:Howcanoneservetheinterestsofmen,mankindandtheforests?Because nature, culture and legal conditions differ everywhere, solutions are bound to be varied.

IntheKaffaforestsofBonga,“Geoprotectstherainforests”andasmallorganisa-tion called“OriginalFood”has started paying the farmers double the price for auniqueproduct: forestcoffee.ForKaffa is theoriginalhomeof thepreciousbeanwhichgrowswildintheforestshere,andinavarietyofspeciestoo.Inbuyingtheannualharvestfromthefarmersatafixedprice,oneisnotonlyensuringthatthefarmersearnahigherincomebutalsothattheydevelopagreaterinterestinforestprotection.For,withthat,thejunglebecomesvaluablenotbystrippingitbare,butbyprotectingitandusingitforaslongaperiodaspossible.Theforestsnowgenerateincomethatprovidesalivelihoodfor6,600smallfarmersintheremoteKaffaregionandtheirfamilies,whichtendtobeextremelylarge.Inordertoorganisethemarketingofcoffeeinamannerthatissustainableinthe

long term, forestdwellersandvillage communitieshaveorganised themselves intoforestuserassociations.Often,underthedirectionofinternationalassociations,theymarkoffanareaandsetdowncommonrightsandrulestogetherwithamanagementplan.“Participatoryforestmanagement”isaclassicprocedurewiththecommons.

Decision-making processes and sanctions against rule-breakers are decided upon by the people themselves. This in many places is equivalent to a small revolution. In Kaffa, the farmers have succeeded in bringing about this small revolution.

WildcoffeeisanimportantsourceofincomeinKaffa,Ethiopia.PHOTOS:NABU/S.BENDER-KAPHENGST


EnERGY In OuR HAnDS

WhenHamburg’sGreenParty (GAL)decided to formagovernmentwith theCDUafterthestateparliamentaryelectionsinearly2008,theypromisedtheirrankandfilethattheywouldopposeanynewhardcoal-firedpowerstations.But justafewmonthslater,itwasclearthattheonlylegaloptionleftwastograntsuchpermission;theirelectionpromisehadtobebroken.ThedefeatwastakenupbyHamburgministerfortheenvironmentAnjaHajduk

andhercolleaguesasachallenge:theydecidedtosetuptheirownpowersupplycom-panyandcompetewiththeprivateenergysupplierVattenfall.HousedinthecomplexofHamburgWasser,acompanyinmunicipalhands,thenewpublicutilitiessupplypowerusingonlyrenewableenergysources.Whencitizensvigorouslydemandgreenpower,coalpowermaywellbepushedtotheveryfringesofthemarket.Theprojectleadersweresureofthesupportofthecitizens,forwithinaperiodofthreeyears,anunequivocalmajorityhadvotedinaplebisciteagainstprivatisingahospital,theHam-burgwaterworksandapartoftheinfrastructureforvocationaltraining.

It isnotonly intheHanseaticcitythatpublicutilitycompaniesareexperiencingarenaissance.Theimpetusforthiscomesfromallpartsofsociety.Coalitionsofcitizens,organisationsandoftenevenoppositionpartiestimeandagainhaveprotestedagainstplansbymunicipalgovernmentstoselloffmunicipalpropertyforshort-termgains.Inacitizens’petitionforchangeinLeipzig,almost90%ofthoseeligibletovoteprevent-edsectionsofthepublicutilitiesfrombeingsoldtotheFrenchconcernGazdeFrance.EveninQuedlinburg,Meißen,FreiburgandnumerousotherBavarianmunicipalities,urbanhousing,savingsbanksandpublicutilitycompaniesweredefended.The citizenswant local authorities to take control over energyproduction once

again,todetermineprioritiesandpricing,andeventoletcitizensdirectlytakecharge.ThishasalreadyhappenedinLowerSaxony’sbio-energyvillageofJühnde,inBaden-Württemberg’sSuppingenandamongmembersoftheFreiburgcooperative,“Energyincitizens’hands.”Withaconvincingenergy-savingconcept,efficientpower-heatcouplingandthe

switchovertolocallyavailablerenewableenergies,energyproductiontodaycanbere-linkedwithcommunities–aradicaldecentralisationoftheenergysector!

When energy becomes a commons once again, it would mean: lesser dependence on the energy giants and greater possibility of engaging in sustainable economic activity.

Recommended literature JohnByrneetal:Relocation energy into the social commons.BulletinofScience,Technol-ogy&Society,Volume29,Number2,April2009,pp.81–94.

BioenergyvillageJühndeWWW.BIOENERGIEDORF.DE


SELF-ORGAnISED COmmunICATIOn

Normally,accesstoatelephonenetworkortotheInternetisobtainedinthefollow-ingway:Acontractissignedwithatelephonecompanyoraproviderinordertogainaccess.Oncetherewasonlyoneprovider,thestate-ownedBundespost(FederalPostal&TelecommunicationsServices).Today,thereareahandfuloflargecompaniesandanynumberofsmallercompetitors.Butnotmuchhaschanged–thecustomercanonlybeacustomer,notacreator,publisheroranythingelse. Meanwhile, technology also has alternatives to offer.WLAN establishes fast,

wirelessconnectionsbetweencomputers.WLANrouters,whichcantransferradiosignalstocomputersintheimmediatevicinity,areinexpensive.ThespreadofWLANhasbeenfollowedbyfreewirelessnetworks:networksofpeoplewhonotonlyusetheirWLANrouterstosurfwithoutacableintheirownbackyardsbutalsotoprovideany-onenearbywithfreeInternetaccess.Freewirelessnetworksalsoenabledirectcommunicationbetweenallthecomput-

ersinvolved.Thus,communicationstructurescanbebuiltupevenwherethereisnoInternetaccess–forinstanceintheruralareasofdevelopingcountries.Thismeansthatthe“$100laptops”ofthe“OneLaptopperChild”project–whichaimstoprovideasmanychildrenaspossiblewithalaptopasalearningandcommunicationtool–willcertainlybeabletoformspontaneousnetworkswithallthecomputersinthewirelessrange.Everynewcomputerwidenstherangeofthenetworksinceallcomputersthatcanbeaccessedthroughwirelesscaninturnbecomeapartofthenetwork.Thisisanattractivealternativewherevertraditionalchannelsofcommunicationareabsentortooexpensive.Thenetworkbenefitseveryone,andeveryonecontributestoit.Evenmorepopularthanemailandothercomputer-basedmediaisthegoodold

telephone–but for this, the requisite infrastructuremustbe inplace.TheVillageTelcoProjectand theFreeTelephonyProjectareworking together todevelop freehardwareandsoftwareforthecost-effectiveoperationoftelephonenetworks.Theideaistoprovidealternatives,especiallytopeopleindevelopingcountries,whooftenhavenoaccesstocommercialcommunicationmedia.Everywherepeopleareworkingontheoneortheotheridea.Theysharetheresultsoftheirwork–freesoftwareandconstructionplansforfreehardware–withallofus.

Links OneLaptopPerChild:www.olpc-deutschland.deVillageTelco:www.villagetelco.orgFreeTelephonyProject:www.rowetel.com/ucasterisk

D4T – An AIDS DRuG FROm PubLIC LAbS

Thesubstanced4TwasdevelopedintheDetroitInstituteofCancerResearch(USA)inthe‘60sduringthesearchforacancerdrug.WhenAIDSbrokeoutinthe80s,itsetoffafeverishsearchforsuitabledrugsforHIVtherapy.AtYaleUniversity,researchersrememberedthesubstanced4T,andfurtherstudieswereconductedwithfundsfromtheUSNationalInstitutesofHealth.In1986,YaleUniversityregisteredapatentond4TforthetreatmentofAIDS.ThepharmaceuticalcompanyBristol-MyersSquibb(BMS)wasthengivenanexclusivelicenceforfurtherdevelopmentoftheproduct;itfinallybroughtthemedicineontothemarketin1994underthenameof“Zerit.”Asapatentholder,theuniversityreceivedashareoftheprofits.SoonitbecameclearthatAIDShadbecomeacatastropheofunimaginablepro-

portions,particularlyinSouthernAfrica.Butthecostofthemedicinewassohighthatnorelieforganisations,letalonetheaffectedpersonsthemselves,couldaffordit.ThatiswhytheorganisationDoctorsWithoutBordersaskedYaleUniversityinFebruary2001tograntitavoluntarylicenceford4Ttoproduceandimportlow-costgenericsintoSouthAfrica.TheUniversityadministrationdeclined,pointingtoitscontractualagreementwithBMStohonourtheexclusivelicenceford4T.

PHOTO:FLICKR-USERSUTTONHOO

PHOTO:WIKIMEDIACOMMONS-USERPÖLLÖ


Yale’sdecisionprovokedoutrageamongstudentsandresearchers,whocomplainedthatalife-savingdrugwasbeingwithheldfromthosewhoneededitforpurelycom-mercialreasons.Thereweresignaturecampaigns,pressreportsandpublicdebates.InJune2001,thelicenceholderBMSgaveinandsignedawayitsexclusiverightstod4TinAfrica.ThissignificantlyreducedthecostsofAIDStherapythere.

FREE LICEnSES AnD THE COPYLEFT PRInCIPLE

Whoeverdistributesproprietarysoftwaretofriendsoracquaintancesiscommittingan illegal, punishable act.For,whoever does this is producing a copy, andproduc-ing copies is forbidden under copyright law. The law also prohibits any modifica-tionofcopyrightedsoftwareinanyform,fortodothis,onewouldneedthe“sourcecode,”theversionoftheprogrammethatcanbeunderstoodbypeople,andnotjustbymachines.However,companiescloselyguardthesourcecodeoftheirprogramsandrarelyreleaseit.Butevenifsomeonemanagedtoobtainthesourcecodeandchangethesoftware,itwouldbeillegaltodistributeittoothers;theimprovedversioncouldonlybeusedforpersonalpurposes.RichardStallman,ahackerintheearlydaysofcomputing,didnotunderstandthis

situation.Hewantedtosharehissoftwaresothatitcouldbefreelycopied,modifiedandsharedwithoutrestriction.Hehimselfsoughttouseonlysoftwarethatgavehimthose freedoms.ItwasStallmanwhocoined the term“freesoftware”todescribesoftwarethatofferedallitsusersthefollowingfreedoms:

Freedom 0: ◆ Thefreedomtoruntheprogrammeforanypurpose(computerscien-tistshavethestrangehabitofstartingtocountfrom0ratherthan1).

Freedom 1: ◆ Thefreedomtostudyhowtheprogrammeworksandtoadaptittoone’sownneeds.

Freedom 2: ◆ Thefreedomtodistributetheprogrammetoothersandmakecopiesforthemtoo.

Freedom 3: ◆ Thefreedomtoimprovetheprogrammeandmaketheseimprove-mentsaccessibleforthebenefitofall.

ToexerciseFreedoms1and3,accesstothesourcecodeisrequired.AsforFreedom2and3,therearenoprovisionsincopyrightlawforsuchacts.Eachfreedomwouldrequiretheexplicitapprovaloftheoriginalauthorofthesoftware.Toaddresstheseproblems,Stallmandrewupalicence,whichheattachedtotheprogrammes,thatgrantsallusersthesefourfreedoms.Noonethereforeneedstoobtaintheauthor’spermissiontocopy,modifyorshare;wealreadyhaveit.ButStallmanquicklyrealisedthatthefourfreedomswerenotadequate.Anyone

whomodifiesorexpandsaprogramme,andredistributesit,becomestheco-authorofthenewsoftwareprogramme.Thismeansthatuserswouldthenhavetoalsoobtainthisco-author’spermissiontoreviseanddistributetheamendedversion.Ifthenewauthorweretorefusepermission,users’freedomswouldonceagainbestymied.Inordertoensurethatalltheversionsbasedonhissoftwareremainfree,Stallman

incorporatedaprinciplethathecalled“copyleft”intohislicense–theGNUGeneralPublicLicense,orGPLforshort.Thecopyleftturnstheoriginalintentionofthecopy-rightonitshead.Whilstcopyrightnormallymakesnodemandsoftheauthorand,ontheotherhand,permitstheusersvirtuallynothing,copyleftdoesexactlytheopposite:itallowstheuserstodoagreatdealbygrantingthemthefourfreedomsmentionedabove,whileatthesametimeobligingallfutureauthorsofderivativeworkstogranttheiruserstheverysamerightsthattheythemselveshadenjoyed.

Source:BukoPharma-Kam-pagne,med4all:MedizinischeForschung–derAllgemein-heitverpflichtet[Medicalresearch–obligatedtothepublic),No.1/2009S.8/9,shortversion


Theauthorsarethusgiventhefreedomtochangetheprogrammeandtopublishthesechanges (Freedom3), but onlyon condition that theypublish themodifiedversionunderGPLagainandthereforegiveusersaccesstothesourcecode,whichisneededtomakeanychangestotheprogramme.

Thus, the freedom provided in the software published under GPL is guaranteed for all times and all future developments.

Reversing the intentionsof copyright law–which is thebasisofall free licences–throughcopyleftlicenseshasbeenextremelysuccessful.Today,theGPLisusedforsometwo-thirdsofallfreesoftwareprogrammes.Whatworks for software could alsomake sense for othermedia such as texts,

images,music.That isthe ideabehindCreativeCommons(CC),aprojectthatcon-ceivedanddevelopedawholefamilyof licencesforsharingworks.Eachindividualauthorcanselectfromamongsixlicensestheonethatbestsuitshisneeds,amongotheroptions.Hecandecide,forexample,whethertheCopyleftprinciple(referredtobyCreativeCommonsas“ShareAlike”),isimportantornot,orwhethertopermitorbancommercialuseofhiswork.Authorsalsohavetheoptionofprohibitingchangesto theirworks througha“NoDerivatives” license.As this suggestions, notallCClicencesgrantthe“fourfreedoms”offreesoftware.Butallowingthedistributionofworksfornon-commercialuseisalwayspermitted,andthatisabigstepintherightdirection.

Recommended literature WikipediaarticlesonCopyleft,CreativeCommons,FreeSoftwareGNUGeneralPublicLicense,RichardStallmannGNUproject:TheDefinitionofFreeSoftwarewww.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.de.html

CreativeCommons“AttributionShareAlike”

FUNDAMENTALSOFACOMMONS-BASEDPEERPRODUCTION 41

FuNdaMENTalS OF a COMMONS-baSEd pEEr

prOduCTiONWhatappearstobeaweakpointofthecommonstodaycouldprovetobeitsstrength:moneyplaysasubordinaterole.Characteristicofthecommonsiscooperationamongpeople for thegrowthof sharedproperty,notcompetition for theaccumulationofindividualwealth.Generally,monetary incentives in thecommonsareonlymargin-ally important;more importantareaspectssuchascollectiveuse, theopportunitytolearnorbuildareputation,andsocialconviviality.Inthissense,thesphereofthecommonsisa“goods-free”one.

What we have here is an economy of sharing and inclusion, not of accumulation and exclusion.

Withoutsuchasystemofsharing,establishinglimitstoagrowtheconomyisincon-ceivable.Thecommonsenablesproductiontooccurwithlowerfinancialstakes;con-tributionsaregenerallymadeoutofasenseofcommunity,personalinterestintheenterpriseorasenseofsocialsolidarity.JustasWikipediacouldnotexistifallofitscontributorshadtoberemunerated,soalsothenursingservicesthatadozenolderpeopleprovideamongthemselvesinaco-housingprojectwouldovertaxpublicfinan-cialsupportfornursing.Inotherwords:whateverisbroughtintothesphereofthecommons–referredtoin

manyplacesas“socialcapital”–is,inpreciseterms,“money-efficient.”Lessfinan-cialcapitalandcashexchangeisneededperunitofworkperformed.Thisenablesthecommons to functionasaneconomicsystemwithout thedestructive imperativeofconstanteconomicgrowth.

Since money efficiency in this sense may be regarded as a pillar for a post-growth economy, re-inventing the commons is a prerequisite for a viable economic order in the 21st century.

It isundoubtedlyextremelyreckless tocontinue tobankonrisingnational income.Doingtheopposite,thatis,pushingforeconomicstabilityandrestrictiononconsump-tion,ismoreprudentasitwere.Thereasonsforthisarewell-known:climatechaos,dwindlingoilandgasreserves,growingmountainsofdebtandheighteneddemandsmadeonavailableresourcesinmanyplacesintheworld.Soon–inmanyplaceseventoday–itisnolongergrowthbutsurvivalatacivilisedlevelthatwewillbeseekingtoachieve.Neither economic practice nor theory is prepared for this newworld. They are

helplesswhenfacedwiththequestionastohowlivingconditionscanbe improvedwhenthepienolongergrowslarger.Economicreformsthatfacilitateprogressiveoradequatemanagementwillrequireadiversearchitectureofstablecommons.AmericanlegalscholarYochaiBenklerwasamongthefirsttorecognisethatapro-ductionandeconomicsystembasedonthecommonsdifferssignificantlyfromtradi-tionalnotionsofmarketproduction.Benklercoinedtheterm“commons-basedpeerproduction”todescribethiseconomy.Unlikeproductionforthemarket,commons-basedpeerproductionisnotmeantforsale

butfordirectuse.Peerprojectshaveacommonobjective–toproducesoftware,cre-atemusic,maintainagarden–withallthoseinvolvedcontributingtowardsthisgoalinoneoranotherway.Forthemostpartthegoalisnottoearnmoney,buttoreapbenefitsbyparticipatinginacommunity.Peoplecontributebecausetheysharethegoalsofaprojectandwishitsuccessorsimplybecausetheyenjoycontributing.Suchcommons-basedpeerproductioncancreatenewcommonsandnurtureand

improveexistingones.Hierarchicalcommandstructuresarelargelyunknowntothesepeerprojects.Thiscertainlydoesnotmeanthattheyareunstructured(oftentherearemaintainersandadministratorswhokeepaprojectontrackanddecidewhethercon-tributionsshouldbeintegratedorrejected),butnoonecandictatetotheotherswhatistobedone.Managingthesenewdigitalcommonsissubjecttocertainrules.These

FUNDAMENTALSOFACOMMONS-BASEDPEERPRODUCTION42

rulesemergefromaconsensusamongthepeers.Inthepeer-managedeconomyofthecommons,therearenocompulsionsandnocommands.Cooperationbetweenequalsis voluntary.Everyone ismotivated to show initiative.Maintainers canonly try topersuadeparticipantsthatacertainactivityismeaningful.Thisresultsinmaximumfreedomforallthoseinvolved.

Commons-basedpeerproductionalwaystakesplacewithincommunitiesinwhichpeo-plewithcommoninterestsorfromthesameneighbourhoodcometogether.AsthecaseofLinuxreveals,theseareasandcommunitiescanbeglobalinscope.Virtualworldsmakeitpossiblefornew,territoriallyindependentformsofthecommunitytoemerge.

In open-ended processes that are never concluded, the communities develop rules as well as forms of organisation and institutionalisation that best serve their objectives.

TheInternetinnovationfollowingthedot-comcrashofMarch2000showshowinno-vativeandproductiveacommons-basedeconomycanbe.Atthattime,itwasprophe-siedthattechnologicaldevelopmentintheNetwouldcometoahalt.TheCrashmeantthatcapitalwaslost.Expertsofthemarketeconomypredictedthatthenextphaseofinnovationwouldbelongincoming.But thiswasnot the case. Instead, innovations forWeb2.0occurredat break-

neckspeed.Atthatpointintimewhenfundswerescarce,therewasnoslowdowninthedevelopmentoftheInternetbut,instead,anacceleration.Thisisnotaparadox;rather,itconfirmstheinnovativepotentialofthecommonsandofcollectiveformsofpeerproduction.Inthe1970s,therewasanemergingsectorforrenewableenergiesinCalifornia.

Butstart-upsactive inthissectorwereboughtupbylargercompanies,deridedasinefficient and incorporated into traditional operating structures. This effectivelybroughttoahaltallinvestmentsandinnovationsforrenewableenergiesandforalter-nativeautomotiveengines.Thereasonforthisissimple:materialproductionisprima-rilybasedonknowledge,concepts,ideasanddesigns.Whoeveracquirescontrolovertheseisassuredofpower.Thirtyyearsago,amuch-neededphaseofinnovationforrenewableenergiesdid

notcomeaboutbecausedesignswereproprietary;onlythe“owners”couldusethem.Thiswasacatastrophefortheclimateandacatastropheformankind.Tocombineecologicalneedswiththehumaneconomy,weneedfreelyaccessible

designs.Mobility,energysupply,communicationsandtheconsumergoodsoftomor-rowneedopenaccesstodesigns.

YochaiBenklerPHOTO:FLICKR-USERJOI

FUNDAMENTALSOFACOMMONS-BASEDPEERPRODUCTION 43

Althoughcommons-basedpeerproductionhasdevelopedprimarilyintheareasofknowledgeandsoftwareproduction,itsprinciplescanalsobeappliedtotheproduc-tionofmaterialgoods.Thismeans:

“Itisnotsodifficulttorecognisetheproblem.WeliveinasocietywhichobviouslyassumesthatwehaveasurplusofNature.Soweproduceanddisposeofourgoodsaccord-ingly.Butthisismerelyapseudo-surplus;itactuallydoesnotexist.Whilstthereisreallyasurplusintheimmate-rialworld,thisiskeptartifi-ciallyenclosed.”MICHELBAUWENS

Knowledgeandnaturalresourcesarecommonsthatinprinciplemustbeopen ◆

toall.Rulesregulatingtheirusemustguaranteefairness.Theproductionofphysicalgoodsmustbebasedonfreedesignsthatanyone ◆

canfurtherdevelopandadapttohis/herownneeds.Physicalproductionisdecentralizedandorganisedclosetothelocallevel. ◆

Productionmustbeuse-anduser-oriented:itisproductionforlife! ◆

Aswithfreesoftware,theinvolvementoftheparticipantsmusttakeplace ◆

onthebasisof“individualchoice”–thatis,onedecideshowandwhereonewishestoparticipate.Thiscallsforahighdegreeofcoordination,thoughitalsobringsagreatermeasureofsatisfaction.Peerproductionisbasedoninclusion,notexclusion.Althoughtherearerules ◆

whichthecommunitiessubjectthemselvestoandwhicheveryindividualmustobserve,termsandconditionsforinvolvementareeasy.Participationisthere-forefacilitated.

The principle underlying involvement here is: I do something for the others and the others do something for me.

Whilecommonsareofvitalimportance,theyhavebecomealmostinvisibleinthemar-keteconomy.Yetthecommonseconomyislikelytosurgeinthefuture.Markets,astheyexisttodayinthecommoditieseconomy,willplayalesssignificantroleinthefuture,whilethecommonsandtheopencommunitiesofcommonerswillbecomethecentreoflife.Forthis,anewunderstandingofthemarketandanewunderstandingofmanagementmustevolve,inwhichthecommonsarenotprimarilytheobjectofpri-vateacquisition,butareused,preservedandfurtherdevelopedforthebenefitofall.

Recommended literature YochaiBenkler:The Wealth of NetworksYaleUniversityPress,NewHaven2006http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/wealth _ of _ networksChristianSiefkes:From Exchange to Contribu-tions,Berlin2007.www.peereconomy.org

44

a visionAVISION

iN CONCluSiON : a viSiON

Weneedchangeandweknowthe

direction.Manyarealreadyon

theirway.

Thisreportshowsthattheideaof

thecommonshasappealtoawide

spectrumofmovements.Therein

liesitsstrength.

Itallowsustogathertogethera

vastrangeofpracticalapproaches

andprojectsintoacommonstrat-

egy,withoutdispensingwiththe

diversityofworld-views.

45

a visionAVISION

Wecanturnourenergies,institutionsandtal-entsdirectlytothecommonsandtheircore:thediversityoflife.

Wecanaskofeveryproject,ideaandeconomicactivitywhethertheydomoreforcommunities,forsocietyandtheenvironmentthantheytakefromthem.

Wecan,asadefaultpriority,acknowledgeandmateri-allypromotethoseactionsthatgenerate,nurtureandaugmentthatwhichisgenerallyavailable.

Wecaninstitutionalizetheequita-blesharingoftheearth’sgiftsandthecollectivesharingofpastandpresentachievements. Wecanusetransparent,partici-

pativeandconsensualdecision-makingprocesses,formsofcom-municationandtechnologies,andimprovetheseforall.

Wecanreversetheprevailingeconomicincentives–bysettinglimitsonourbehav-iorandusenaturalresourcesinasustain-ablemanner,whileatthesametimemak-inglavishuseofideaswhosepotentialarelimitless.Inthisway,webenefitfromboth.

Wecanseekoutintelligentpathstofurthertheprogressforall,ratherthanmerelyconcentrateonindividualadvancement.

4.

3.

2.

1 .

5.

6.

7.

46 LINKS

l iNkS GErMaN

Call of the World Social Forum for the Recovery of the Commons Five-languageInternetpagecompiledinthewakeofthe9thWorldSocialForumofJanuary2009inBélemdoPara(Brazil).Thecallisaninvitationtodebateandsignup.

http://bienscommons.org

CommonsblogFindingsfromthepasturecommons–worldwide!

www.commonsblog.de

Creative CommonsDevelopsmodellicencecontractswiththehelpofwhichtheoriginalauthorscanalsolendtheircreationssomefreedom:“Somerightsreserved”insteadof“Allrightsreserved”.

http://de.creative commons.org/index.php

GNUTheGNUprojectwasinitiatedin1984todevelopacomplete,unix-likeoperatingsystemthatconstitutesfreesoftware.ItisbasedontheLinuxkernel.

www.gnu.org/home.de.html

iRights.infoAreprivateindividualswhoviolatecopyrightscriminals?IsanyonewhocopiesaCDorDVDpunishablebylaw?Informationavailableoncopyrightsinthedigitalworldprovidesorientation.

www.irights.ino/index.php?id=58

Keimform.deThesearchforthenewintheold:thecollectiveblogonemancipatoryprojects,themes,theories,detaileddiscussionsonthecommons-basedeconomy.

www.keimform.de

The Max Planck Institute for Research on Community Assetswww.mpg.de/instituteProjekteEinrichtungen/institutsauswahl/recht _ gemeinschaftsgueter/index.html

47LINKS

l iNkS ENGl iSh

Center for Genetics and SocietyNon-governmentalorganisationsdevotedtotheresponsiblemanagementofthehumangeneticpool.

http://genetics and society.org

Barcelona Charter for Innovation, Creativity and Access to KnowledgeStatementsofnumerousinternational“commoners”againstaretrogradenetpolicyandforacommons-basedculturalpolicy.

http://fcforum.net

ETC GroupNon-governmentalorganisation,Canada,MexicoandGreatBritain.Research,networking,lobbyingforhumanrights,sustainabledevelopmentofculturalandbiologicaldiversity.Acriticalappraisalofnewtechnologies.

www.etcgroup.org/en

Free Software Foundation EuropeFoundationforthepromotionoffreesoftwareinEurope.

www.fsfeurope.org

IASCInternationalAssociationfortheStudyoftheCommons.

www.indiana.edu/~iascp

International Journal on the CommonsSciencejournaltopromoteabetterunderstandingofthecommonsandtheirmanagement.AninitiativeoftheIASC.Allthearticlesareavailableonline.

www.the commonsjournal.org/index.php/ijc

Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)Non-governmentalorganisation,USA;research,publicityandmonitoringoraccesstoknowledgeandtechnologyinmedicine.

www.keionline.org

On the CommonsMulti-faceted,interdisciplinaryblogcoveringallaspectsofthecommonsinpolitics,businessandday-to-dayliving.

www.onthecommons.org

P2P FoundationWebsiteonpeer-to-peertechnology,peer-to-peerproductionandpeer-to-peersociety.

www.p2pfoundation.net/The _ Foundation _ for _ P2P _ Alternatives

48 CONTRIBUTORS

ThE CONTribuTOrS

SILKE HELFRICH

StudiedRomanlanguages–FrenchandPortuguese– inLeipzigtill1989.Workedinthedevelopmentpolicyareafromthebeginningofthe‘90s.HeadedtheHeinrichBöllFoundationOfficeforCentralAmerica,Mexico,Cubabetween1999and2007.PresentlylivesandworksasafreelancewriterinJenaandrunsaGermanblogonthecommons:www.commonsblog.de

“The critical examination of the commons is a key to understanding social conditions. Every society must at any point of time define this term for itself.”

PROF. DR. RAInER KuHLEn

Focal areas of research and teaching: information retrieval, information market,informationethics,informationpoliticsandinformationlaw;collaborativeknowledgemanagement ine-learning,commonstheories.Chair for informationscience in theUniversityofConstancesince1980;memberof thetechnicalcommitteefor“Com-municationandInformation”oftheGermanUNESCOCommission(DUK);GermanUNESCOChairinCommunications(ORBICOM);ChairmanoftheAssociationNeth-icsRegis.Ltd. (Informationethics in theNet); spokesmanof theActionGroupon“CopyrightforEducationandScience”;appraiserforvariousBundestagcommitteesandStudyCommissions;memberofnumerousAdvisoryCouncils/CommissionsinGer-many(fortheFederalMinistryforEducationandResearchandtheGermanResearchFoundation),Austria,SwitzerlandandtheEU.

“Recognising the social, political and economic importance of the commons raises the debate of ecology and sustainability to a new, future-oriented level.”

PROF. DR. wOLFGAnG SACHS

Studied theology, sociology and history. Since 1993, researcher at theWuppertalInstitutefortheClimate,EnvironmentandEnergyGmbH.GuestlecturerattheSchu-macherCollege,EnglandandHonoraryProfessorattheUniversityofKassel.MemberoftheClubofRome.NumerouspublicationsinGermanyandabroadontheenviron-ment,globalisation,newmodelsofaffluenceand,morerecently,leadcontributortotheWuppertal Institute’s study,Zukunftsfähiges Deutschland in einer globalisi-erten Welt,Frankfurt2008,publishedbyBUND,eedandBrotfürdieWelt.

“What should we call the commons in German? Gemeingüter? Allmende? Gemeinheit? Where there‘s no name, there there’s no perception – that’s the tragedy of the commons in the German-speaking world .”

DR. CHRISTIAn SIEFKES

Studiedinformaticsandphilosophy.LivesasafreelancesoftwaredeveloperandwriterinBerlin.Co-authorofthecollectiveblogkeimform.deontheemancipationpotentialoffreesoftwareandotherformsofthecommonseconomy;amonghispublicationsis:Beitagen statt tauschen,NeuUlm2008.

“A commons-based mode of production has the potential of surmounting the basic limitations and problems of modern society, without undermining its positive achievements in the process.”

Water Internet Photosynthesis Moor Forest

Air Meadow Health Pasture Frequency spect-

rum Periodic system Gene Soil Ice Electricity

Fire Education Heath Biodiversity Light Waves

Resources Culture Bottom of the sea Energy

source UV-rays Ozone layer Reefs Software

Culture Technique Reading Writing Algorithm

Language Silence Fairytale Knowledge Music

Dances Traditions Marketplaces Squares Wi-

kipedia Water Internet Photosynthesis Moor

Forest Air Meadow Health Pasture Frequency

spectrum Periodic system Gene Soil Ice Electri-

city Fire Education Heath Biodiversity Light

Waves Resources Culture Bottom of the sea

Energy source UV-rays Ozone layer Reefs Soft-

ware Culture Technique Reading Writing Algo-

rithm Language Silence Fairytale Knowledge

Music Dances Traditions Marketplaces Squares

Wikipedia Landscapes Time Social networks

Tides Internet Photosynthesis Moor Forest Air

Meadow Health Pasture Frequency spectrum

Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung Schumannstraße 8, 10117 Berlin www.boell.de

They are the great variables. And yet all of us live off them. It is primarily through them that our community exists. We are speak-ing here of the commons. Of air and water, knowledge, software and social spheres. And of many other things that enable us to live our day-to-day lives and pursue economic activity. Yet many of these commons are at risk – they are taken away from the community, commercialised, irreparably damaged. They should instead be nurtured and expanded.

We need to create a new awareness for the significance of these “common assets.” For without them, there can be no prosperity or well-being. The commons need people who campaign for them, feel responsible for them. The manifold problems of the present could be solved if we focus all the energies and creativity that we possess on that which supports our wealth, which works and helps man to develop his potential. This report seeks to draw pub-lic attention to these aspects as well as to “commons-based peer production.”

the commons – prosperity by sharing silke helfrich rainer … · 2010. 10. 29. ·...

Documents