The Coronavirus pandemic raises many questions about public health, global diseases and the way we produce and distribute cures and treatments. Who pays for the corona vaccine and how? How is that innovation organised? Who profits?

Commons Network has been an advocate in this domain (‘access to medicines’) for years. In the next few months, we will publish a series of articles about the problems with the current system and the ideas and visions that exist to change this. Today, we discuss the proposal for a Covid-19 Knowledge Pool.

COVID-19 is a global health crisis that demands an immediate global response. But this crisis also lays bare many other crises in our societies. In many Western countries, the response to the virus has shown the vulnerabilities in our public health systems and other essential sectors of society. One major issue that the coronavirus exposes is the dire state of our biomedical system and the role that pharmaceutical companies play in that system.

• In The Netherlands, for instance, hospitals didn’t have enough test kits because Roche, the world’s largest biotech company, initially refused to hand over the recipe that is needed to perform these tests.
• In the United States, Trump’s ‘corona-minister’ Alex Azar released a statement saying that the government could not guarantee that a potential cure for Covid-19 would be affordable, because the innovation that is needed for that cure would only be spurred by high profits.
• The rush to create a vaccine was delayed for up to two or three years, because in most countries, pharmaceutical companies had sold their vaccine research facilities. And the companies that still had the capabilities to do the research had effectively scaled down their coronavirus research because there was no money to be made.
• Scientists were close to a coronavirus vaccine years ago, and then the money dried up.
• The vaccine market was even called ‘an oligopoly’ by Wall Street analysts at AB Bernstein. In fact, after countries abandoned infectious disease research, most companies also moved away from investing in this field, according to DNDi director Bernard Pecoul.
• In France, it was debated why a testing kit for coronavirus should cost 135 euro, eventhough the production costs are only 10 euros. The sub-optimal availability of tests was cited as a major reason for not testing in the fight against the pandemic in many European countries, leading many people to ask if this had economic reasons as well.

More and more people have now come to realise that the global race to find a cure for Covid-19 and a vaccine is slowed down considerably by the fact that the system we have now runs on market incentives and patent monopolies. Instead of shielding essential knowledge, companies could work together, share research results and new insights.

Moving away from a deficient system

The pharmaceutical industry is driven by profit and guided by shareholders. The research and innovation that is needed to come up with cures and treatments is monopolised. A system of patents and licenses is fine-tuned to produce the maximum wealth for a few multi-billion euro corporations. This is how we have organised the world of medicines today. Our system is not driven by public health needs but by profit and the only logic that counts is that of capitalism.

Our system is not driven by public health needs but by profit and the only logic that counts is that of capitalism

This model is based on the belief that the flow of biomedical knowledge should be privatized and protected through intellectual property rights in order to stimulate innovation. This monopoly model gives pharmaceutical companies the freedom to charge as much as they can get away with. It also stifles innovation where we most need it, like in the area of infectious diseases, because there is no money to be made. And finally, this system makes us, the people, pay three times: once to fund the universities and research facilities that create a lot of the knowledge needed for pharmaceutical innovation, once to pay these companies to produce and distribute, and once to our governments to fund our health care system.

It’s hard to estimate how many medicines are not invented, how much talent is wasted and how many people have to suffer because of what not is being researched and developed. This sytem limits the ability to collaborate, share knowledge and build on each other’s work. The public good of scientific medical knowledge and health related technologies has been transformed into a highly protected, privatized commodity.

The COVID-19 crisis marks a critical moment for generating the change we need. But how do we go from this neoliberal capitalist logic to something else, towards a system that is driven by the needs of the public and the health of the people?

Knowledge commons

The proposal to build  a global knowledge pool for rights on data, knowledge and technologies that was presented by Costa Rica is a great example of a step in the right direction, towards transformational change. On March 23^rd, the government of Costa Rica sent a letter to the World Health Organization, calling for a Global Covid-19 Knowledge Pool¹. In his letter to the WHO, the president of Costa Rica demands a global program to “pool rights to technologies that are useful for the detection, prevention, control and treatment of the COVID-19 pandemic.” It now also enjoys the support of the WHO as well as from the UK parliament and the Dutch government and civil society, which has announced their support the idea of a COVID-19 pool as well.

Why do we need a knowledge pool and why is it transformational?

As mentioned above, under our current system the privatization of knowledge limits the ability to collaborate, share knowledge and build on each other’s work. This really is artificial because knowledge is by nature abundant and shareable. Hence the current handling of medical technologies not only limits access to the ensuing treatments, it also limits innovation.

The Covid-19 Poll would pool relevant knowledge & data to combat Covid-19, creating a global knowledge commons². It is a proposal to create a pool of rights to tests, medicines and vaccines with free access or licensing on reasonable and affordable terms for all countries. This would allow for a collaborative endeavor, and could accelerate innovation. It would be global, open and offer non discriminatory licenses to all relevant technologies and rights. As such the pool would offer both innovation and access.

Inputs could come from governments, as well as from universities, private companies and charities. This could be done on a voluntary basis but not only. Public institutions around the world are investing massively in Covid-19 technologies and all results could be automatically shared with this pool, meaning this could be a condition attached to public financing.

So, placing knowledge in a commons does not just mean sharing data and knowledge without regard for their social use, access and preservation. It means introducing a set of democratic rules and limits to assure equitable and sustainable sharing for health-related resources. As such it allows for equitable access, collaborative innovation and democratic governance of knowledge. At the same time knowledge commons could facilitate open global research and local production adapted to local context.

Placing knowledge in a commons does not just mean sharing data and knowledge without regard for their social use, access and preservation. It means introducing a set of democratic rules and limits to assure equitable and sustainable sharing

If we consider the COVID-19 pool holistic initiative that treats the knowledge as a commons, not only to accelerate innovation but also recognizing this knowledge as a public good for humanity which should be managed in a way to ensure affordable access for all, it could be transformational. In contrast to the existing Medicines Patent Pool this pool would be global and not primarily focus on providing access to exitisting technologies, but more also on innovation: developing diagnostics, medicines and vaccines.

Transformational change

Instead of proposing tweaks it is now time to challenge the idea of handling medicines principally as a commodity or product, and to propose structural changes in order to approach health as a common good.  This means referring to our collective responsibility for – and the governance of health when reframing biomedical knowledge production. Instead of leaving it entirely to markets and monopoly based business models.

For this we should move to an approach based on knowledge sharing, cooperation, stewardship, participation and social equity – in practice, this means shifting to a public interest biomedical system based on knowledge commons and open source research, open access, alternative incentives and a greater role for the public sector. Knowledge pools are a crucial piece of the puzzle.

The current COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates how it is possible to make transformational changes overnight when acting in times of an emergency. Let us use this crisis to acknowledge the failures of today’s biomedical research model and usher in the systemic change needed. The world after Corona will require the consideration of alternative paradigms –  it is indeed, as Costa Rica, Tedros and now the Netherlands as well rightfully confirmed – time for the knowledge commons to flourish now.

For some more background about commons thinking in the field of biomedical R&D and possible alternatives to ensure access to medicines for all, read our our policy paper ‘From Lab to Commons’. See also last year’s work on ‘The People’s Prescription’ by our allies in the UK, in cooperation with professor of Economics Mariana Mazzucato.

1. The idea of a knowledge pool is to organise the governance of knowledge by pooling intellectual property, data and other knowledge. This can accelerate the development of health technologies and thus stimulate affordable access to the public. In 2010 the Medicines Patent Pool was set up as a response to the unequal access to HIV/AIDS treatments in developing countries. It has proven to be a great success and now functions as a United Nations-backed public health organisation working to increase access to medicines for HIV, Hepatis c and Tuberculosis.
2. Knowledge commons refer to the institutionalized community governance of the sharing and, in some cases, creation, of information, science, knowledge, data, and other types of intellectual and cultural resources.

The post Pooling Knowledge: Private Medicine vs. Public Health? appeared first on P2P Foundation.

The book showcases the wealth of transformative ideas that the international commons movement has to offer. With contributions by Kate Raworth, David Bollier, George Monbiot and many others, Our Commons is a political call to arms to all Europeans to embrace the commons and build a new Europe.

Commons Network’s very own Sophie Bloemen and Thomas de Groot worked on this book for almost two years, doing research and interviews, working with academics, policy makers, authors and activists to paint a colourful picture of the commons as the blueprint for a new future, one that is inclusive, ecologically sustainable, equitable, democratic, collaborative, creative and resilient.

Our Commons features reflections on the enclosure of knowledge and the monopolisation of the digital sphere, stories about renewable energy cooperatives and community foodwaste initiatives and urgent pleas to see the city as a commons and to treat health as a common good. Published by the Institute of Network Cultures, the book is first released online as an e-book, free for all to download and share and as a printable PDF. The book will also be available on a wide variety of print-on-demand platforms.

In the next few months, Commons Network will organise a number of official events around the book. Please get in touch at [email protected] if you are interested in hosting a book-launch with the editors and possibly with some of the contributors of the book. Off- and online media that are interested in publishing texts from the book or interviews with the editors and/or contributors are encouraged to reach out to [email protected].

Download the ePub or the print-PDF here and make sure to share this page with as many people as possible, using the hashtag #OurCommonsBook

For all further questions, press inquiries or event bookings, possible citations or cross-posting, or requests for hard-copy printed books, please do not hesitate to reach out to the editors, Thomas de Groot and Sophie Bloemen.

([email protected])

([email protected])

Reprinted from commonsnetwork, you can see the original post here.

The post New Book Out Now: Political Ideas for a New Europe appeared first on P2P Foundation.

‘Shared Spaces’ features many concrete policy ideas for municipal leaders and lawmakers, as well as strategies and tips for urban commons pioneers. It was written by Jens Kimmel, Sophie Bloemen and Till Gentsch and designed by raumlaborberlin. The authors state:

We believe we need to actively protect and strengthen commons initiatives in European cities and build and promote a commons sector by transforming cities’ institutional and policy frameworks. Commons in the city involve people managing urban resources – such as space – together through which economic and, more importantly, social value is created. It is crucial to protect that value as it sustains the very social fabric of our cities. Urban commons strengthen existing communities and bring people together into new ones, they herald the era of pro-active citizenship and encourage participatory and democratic governance.

This paper is meant as an inspiration and tool for those involved or interested in the commons movement, as an urgent reminder for policymakers, as an invitation for politicians to think more concretely about the commons sector in their cities, and as the starting point for a constructive discussion about improving our cities by protecting and strengthening the commons in the urban environment.

You can read it in full, embedded below, or download the pdf here.

The post Shared Spaces: New Paper on Urban Commons (by Commons Network) appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Today Commons Network publishes a new policy paper that takes on the pharmaceutical system and presents real alternatives, based on open source research and the knowledge commons. Commons Network proposes a new vision for the biomedical research system that safeguards universal access to affordable medicines and scientific advances.

Taking the commons perspective allows us to offer a diagnostic of our biomedical innovation system and to put forth a political programme for a transition to a new public interest model. The EU’s market-dominated pharmaceutical policies are sized up from the ‘outside the box’ viewpoint of the common good.

This paper responds to the questions: How does the present pharma model work in Europe, what is wrong with it and what can be done right now to change it. This includes a comparison between the existing model, positive transitions and the transformative commons model with practical examples, principles and outcomes.

The paper also describes a broken pharmaceutical system, that in its current form prevents millions of people in Europe and around the world from getting the medicines they need. It goes on to show how ‘Big Pharma’ creates artificial scarcity by enclosing scientific knowledge resources which could easily be abundant and universally accessible.

The skyrocketing prices of medicines and the lack of affordable access to treatments are key traits of our pharmaceutical system. We are told there are no alternatives. This is not the case. There are alternatives to the current broken pharmaceutical innovation system that do not thrive on high prices nor the privatization of knowledge. Some of these alternatives are already in place on a small scale. Yet policy will have to support a transformation of the entire system for it to be sustainable, efficient and just.

The of medical treatments and knowledge based on patent monopolies, regulatory capture and unfair trade rules means a ‘tragedy of the anti-commons’ where over-medication and under-treatment are two sides of the same coin.

The solution to this conundrum of problems is to unleash the potential of the commons. In short: let’s commonify health-care treatments. We have to unlock the gates around medical knowledge and allow it to be governed democratically both by scientists and citizens as a whole.

This new paper by Commons Network presents the commons approach to biomedical innovation at a time when a new comprehensive approach is so direly needed. The biomedical commons represents a paradigm based on the sharing of knowledge, cooperation, stewardship, participation and social equity.

You can download the summary here,

Or you can read the entire paper embedded in Commons Network’s website.

For more information or collaborations please contact Sophie Bloemen at [email protected] or [email protected]

Photo by mag3737

The post From Lab to Commons: Shifting to a Biomedical System that’s in the Public Interest appeared first on P2P Foundation.

The research that is prioritised and funded today will have a decisive impact on the future of our societies and our planet. Our societies face immense environmental, social and economic challenges as exemplified by the ambitious sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 2030 agenda.

It is certainly no time for ‘business as usual’, and radical change is needed for the European Union (EU) to address these challenges, such as climate change, food security, antimicrobial resistance, decent jobs for all and rising inequalities.

As civil society organisations, we urge a reassertion of our core values, such as peace, democracy, participation, equality, social justice, solidarity and sustainability at the heart of the European project.

EU research policy: for peace, people and planet

A Civil Society perspective on the next EU Research Framework Programme (FP9)

Brussels, 3 July 2017 – Civil society groups call for the next EU Research policy to shift its focus from jobs, growth and competitiveness to delivering global public goods for its citizens.

“With a needs-driven research agenda, the EU could concretely deliver impact for its citizens, address today’s societal and environmental challenges and contribute to a sustainable future for Europe. It could pave the way for the transition to a low carbon economy, sustainable food and farming systems and the development of new affordable health technologies,” says Fanny Voitzwinkler, Head of the EU office of Global Health Advocates.

Research that will make Europe and the world an environmentally sustainable, healthy and peaceful place to live must now be prioritised over research that delivers profit and economic return. The belief that boosting industry’s competitiveness will create jobs and ‘trickle down’ to the benefit of all people is misleading.

“Substantial portions of EU Research funds have been turned into subsidies for large corporations at a time when essential public risk assessment and research institutions are facing budget cuts. This is not acceptable: industry subsidisation is not what a public research policy should be about,” says Martin Pigeon, Research and Campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory.

Private profitability is not a sufficient measure of public benefits – a position also defended by several renowned economists and confirmed by the widening levels of inequalities within our societies.

“At a time when the EU needs to reconnect with citizens, this next research programme should ensure full public return on public investments. There is need for real democratic and participatory decision-making to enable greater accountability over the use of public funds and ensure they have social and environmental impact. Public funds should not be used for military spending,” says Leida Rijnhout, Resources Justice and Sustainability Programme Coordinator at Friends of the Earth Europe.

Proposals for defence to become a much more prominent EU research area post 2020 represents a fundamental shift of the EU from a civilian peace-oriented project to a military-led one, with significant implications for the founding principles set out in the EU treaties.

“The EU is a peace project. There can be no place for military research. The EU should invest in research projects which contribute to the peaceful prevention and resolution of conflicts rather than subsidise research for arms production,” warns Laëtitia Sédou, European Programme Officer at the European Network Against Arms Trade.

To download the full paper, click here.

Photo by dalobeee

The post Essay of the Day: For Peace, People and Planet. appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Frankenstein reproduction right

With the original objective of “protecting equality, press and informed news”, the proposed “publishers right”, or “ancilliary copyright” could very well turn into an unbounded and unrestricted ‘frankenstein reproduction right’ that goes far beyond existing copyright’s “orginality requirements”. The proposed “reproduction right” is radically different from existing copyright law where the originality requirement prevents the appropriation of facts, ideas and non-original expression which are usually not considered to be protected by copyright. Many amendments on the table today before the Legal Affairs Committee aim at prohibiting the use of even the smallest bit or snippet of any text, image or sound from a press article, from public information or from an academic text without the prior permission of the publisher. The negative impact on access to information, access to knowledge and scientific scholarship could be devastating. We are facing a clear attack on our democratic rights as European citizens.

It should be noted that this new layer of copyright does not exist in the US nor in international copyright law.

“Closed science”, “Closed access” and “Closed data”

Many elements of articles 11 and 13 constitute a frontal attack on open science programmes as supported by the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament.

New filtering, policing, monitoring and payment obligations would significantly weaken access to valuable research content produced through public funding by creating extra costs, bureaucratical burdens and legal uncertainty for the academical community. These new legal obligations of intermediary liability would enter into direct conflict with the open science and open access policies that are being widely adopted in Europe and around the world. The aim of these policies is to increase access to research results in order to maximize the use and benefits of science across all sectors. To support open access and open science, universities, libraries and research organisations manage repositories in which researchers upload scientific articles, publications and research data so that everyone can benefit and use the results of research, including other researchers, industry and the public. A new filtering and payment obligations would significantly inhibit through legal uncertainty access to valuable research content produced through public funding, and greatly slow the progress of open science.

Crippling academic “open access” repositories

This new attempt at the enclosure of knowledge threatens the movement towards widespread availability of scientific results for the good of all, and the existence of over 1250 repositories that non-profit European institutions and academic communities use to disseminate academic output. It is important to note that, in the context of academic research, the creators of the content -the scientists- do not receive any financial compensation for their articles, yet publishers often demand that researchers sign over their copyright to the publishers.

Many universities maintain that a new intellectual property right for academic publishers would do “untold damage to the ability of researchers to share their findings and reference the world of scholarship in their published works” (LERU 2016).

Building walls around open data

Open data means that there are no legal restrictions to access to or use, modification and sharing of information for any purpose, subject at most to an obligation to attribute the source. ‘Open’ also means there are no technical restrictions to access and use, e.g. the data is offered in machine readable formats, and in open format rather than in a proprietary format. In contrast, Articles 11 and 13 directly and indirectly restrict the use of open data as well as difficulting open access which are flagship strategies of the EU and its Horizon 2020 research and innovation framework.

Restricting freedom of information

A key rationale that underpins freedom of expression is that the free flow of information is indispensable as it helps ensure that the best democratic decisions are taken. The right protects not just the imparting of ideas and information, but all phases of the communication process, from the gathering of information including a right to access sources, to the communication and reception of it. The legal implications of articles 11 and 13 could mean barriers to the access of citizens to news, public interest information and institutional data, all necessary for informed democratic debate. The public sector might very well automatically own a great deal of publishers intellectual property within its own publicly owned publications. To create exclusive rights in information for publishers will necessarily interfere with the freedom of expression of others. It should be noted that the European Charter of Fundamental Rights upholds a strict standard of scrutiny in the case of news and other public interest information.

In general the EU’s copyright reform has been hijacked by the publishing industry lobby and has been turned into copyright counter-reform that aims at further enclosing knowledge at the expense of our scientific, academic and cultural commons.

Photo by Mark Deckers

The post EU “copyright reform” threatens freedom of information, open access and open science appeared first on P2P Foundation.

‘Supporting the Commons: Opportunities in the EU Policy Landscape’ is an appeal to the European Union to truly become an ally to commoners and commons-thinkers. With this paper, Commons Network lays out a clear unifying political vision for the future of Europe, a way for the EU to renew itself as a democratic and constructive force.

Commons Network co-director Sophie Bloemen: ‘A Europe by and for the people will have to be a Europe that protects and supports the commons. We hope this publication will help make European leaders aware of the urgency of this unmistakable fact, while also giving some pointers on how to go about it.’

The current crisis facing the European Union demands new, unifying and constructive narratives. The commons as way of thinking encapsulates these narratives in one fresh political framework. The ‘commons’ is an emerging paradigm in Europe-one that embraces reciprocity, stewardship, social and ecological sustainability. It is also a movement- one that can reinvigorate progressive politics and contribute to a more socially and ecologically sustainable Europe.

The commons perspective stands in stark contrast to the policy priorities that currently dominate in Europe. The European political scene is built around individualism, private ownership and zealous free market-thinking. Right now, major fault lines are starting to appear in that dominant worldview. Commons often emerge from the bottom up; they are dependent on community processes, and their logic is mostly at odds with the EU’s institutional logic.

‘We believe, however, that there is an important role for EU politics and policy to create the right incentives, to remove hurdles and to bring support to this re-emerging sector’, says David Hammerstein, Commons Network co-director.

So how do we as Europeans move forward? This policy paper reflects some of the EU policy barriers and opportunities in the areas of participatory democracy, the urban environment and knowledge in the digital environment.

Download the paper here (or the executive summary here).

Accompanying this paper, Commons Network will soon publish a strategy document & tool that will give an overview of the various policy processes’ timelines, key actors, and entry points.

What’s next for the commons movement? Commons Network is one of many organisations collaborating in the European Commons Assembly, which will reconvene in Madrid in October. Partnering with the Transeuropa Festival, commoners, activists, thinkers and politicians from all over Europe will gather in Madrid to continue building this movement. You are cordially invited to join us.

The post Commons Network Releases Urgent Call To Europe appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Commons Network, November 2016

Sophie Bloemen & David Hammerstein

With support from the Heinrich Böll Foundation and the European Cultural Foundation.

Supporting the Commons: Opportunities in the EU policy landscape

Major fault lines are starting to appear in the dominant worldview based on individualism, private ownership and an atomistic, rational society. Although science has moved away from this mechanistic, industrial age worldview to a more holistic outlook based on networks, relationships and systems, this paradigm shift has barely been acknowledged in politics, economy and law.[i] The predominant discourses that permeate political discussions in the EU are economic growth, competitiveness and efficiency – considerations that tend to trump everything else. The lion’s share of EU policy focuses on macro-economic indicators and the promotion of large commercial considerations. Citizens are often viewed in a uni-dimensional way – simply as entrepreneurs or consumers.

Commons perspective

The commons perspective stands in stark contrast to the policy priorities that currently dominate in Europe. ‘Commons’ refer to shared resources and frameworks for social relationships that are managed by a community. ‘Commons’ also stand for a worldview and ethical perspective favouring stewardship, reciprocity and social and ecological sustainability. This outlook defines well-being and social wealth not just with narrow economic criteria like gross domestic product or companies’ success. Instead it looks to a richer, more qualitative set of criteria that are not easily measured – including moral legitimacy, social consensus and participation, equity, resilience, social cohesion and social justice.[ii]

The commons discourse considers people as actors who are deeply embedded in social relationships, communities and local ecosystems, instead of regarding society as a collection of atomised individuals who are principally living as consumers or entrepreneurs. Human motivation is more divers than maximising material self-interest alone: we are social beings and human cooperation and reciprocity are at least as important in driving our actions.[iii] This more holistic perspective also tends to overcome dominant subject-object dualisms, between for example man and nature, and to consider human activity as one part of the larger living bio-physical world. Recognising the multiple domains of people’s lives, bottom-up, decentralised and participatory approaches to our major social and environmental dilemmas provide functional solutions to the current environmental and social crises facing our continent.

Cultural shift

Across Europe people are cooperating, co-creating and co-governing resources and goods on many different levels. Many local and larger networked initiatives are overcoming the dualism of commercial and non-commercial, public and private, individual and collective, producer and consumer to develop successful hybrid forms that place the common good before pure individual economic self-interest. The commons use voluntary social collaboration and co-creation on open networks creating social-environmental value in academic research, energy production, nature protection, health drug development and digital innovation. Across Europe, initiatives are springing up that prioritise either social cohesion, ecological sufficiency, community resilience or the sharing of knowledge – representing social and cultural shifts in value models. For example cooperative housing initiatives that ensure reasonable and lasting low rents, a local renewable energy cooperative, or an open access medical journals that back up articles with complete trial data. The regeneration activities of commoners showcase, above all, cultural manifestations of new ways of life.

What role for the EU?

The EU needs the commons and the commons need the EU. The EU project is in deep crisis and needs a roadmap towards more participatory democracy and a just and ecologically sustainable society. The commons can be, and should be, an important part of that roadmap – providing an alternative narrative, a positive and constructive discourse that is at once transnational and trans-local. The commons approach points to specific ways to reform the EU and its policies.

On the other hand, the commons also need to be nurtured, protected and supported by EU policies. Neo-liberal policies creating inequality, promoting unlimited fossil fuel driven material growth and the commodification of all our resources, are destroying our natural and social commons. However, these policies have also driven people to embrace self-managed initiatives in resistance to the overreaching power of the markets and capital in every aspect of their lives and the incapacity of the state to counter the injustices brought about by the financial crisis. Both tough austerity measures as well as discontent with individual consumerism have led to the pursuit of these alternatives.

This cultural shift towards community, collaborative practices, local ecosystems, sustainability, citizen participation and radical democracy manifests itself in many ways, Many local authorities in Europe such as Madrid, Amsterdam, Barcelona and Bologna are engaging with these trends. The EU needs to respond and acknowledge this shift, as well as framing technological developments and guiding developments through responsible institutions. Specifically, this also means earmarking much larger portions of EU funding programmes with criteria and indicators that give preference to commons-based economic, environmental, cultural and research activities.

If there is one investment that the EU should be making at this crucial time in our collective history, it is an investment in democracy. The EU’s democratic deficit has been plaguing the project for a long time; now it even threatens to contribute to the EU’s unravelling. The lack of transparent accountability of national policy-makers in relationship to the EU project is a major flaw; we need structural changes to increase this accountability. As well as improving the current channels of participatory democracy, such as the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI), the European Parliament’s Petitions Committee and the consultation processes, the EU should proactively engage in the creation of instruments for participatory democracy for which technological development has created immense opportunities.

In order to support urban commons practices, and the engagement of citizens in the creation and governance of their direct environments, there needs to be conscious, tailored support for small initiatives and collaborative platforms that contribute to local ecosystems and a circular economy. A circular economy is restorative and regenerative by design, and entails zero waste generation through greater re-use, repair, recycling, sharing and closed –circuit industries. Todays ‘take, make  and dispose’ model is reaching its physical limits.

A rich and growing knowledge commons should be part of the EU roadmap, putting an end to the shrinking of the commons through further privatisation and monopolisation of internet infrastructures, (publicly funded) science and culture. We need public interest-copyright reform, true open science and internet infrastructures governed in the commons interest to favour a decentralised collaborative economy. The EU needs to prioritise and address the management of data in the collective interest.

Diverse movements of commoners are alive and kicking, but they need strong financial support, regulatory facilitation and political visibility. And they need it now. The EU can seize this pivotal moment and choose to become a leader in shaking off a chronic industrial age worldview by embracing the up and coming revolution of peer-to-peer collaboration, economic decentralisation and cultural sharing. 

Recommendations

We are calling on EU institutions to take a more holistic approach. We call on policy-makers to combine economic objectives with a broad integrated appreciation of collaborative, participatory principles as well as social, cultural and environmental objectives that draw on citizens’ priorities. 

Practicing Democracy

The European project sorely needs bottom-up innovation in order to address the limits of representative democracy and its current legitimacy problems. EU democracy needs an urgent dose of re-invigoration and innovative models of participatory political processes are one way to address this.

• The EU should devote time and resources to creative institutions of participatory democracy, learning from al innovative practices already taking place in many European cities.
• The European Citizens’ Initiative needs changes in order to become a useful, accessible tool for citizen participation with real possibilities for stimulating and influencing European legislative debates.
• The European Parliament’s Petitions Committee needs greater resources, more parliamentary power and more accountable responsiveness from the European Commission in order to effectively channel and debate hundreds of citizens’ petitions swiftly, effectively and in a transparent way.
• New digital technologies can facilitate and simplify the democratic participation of European citizens in the formulation, amendment and consideration of new EU legislation.

Commons in the city

Most Europeans live in cities and many of these cities are suffering from acute housing challenges, as well as environmental, multicultural integration and urban decay problems. How can we treat the city as a place that belongs to all its residents and that is governed and functions in accordance with their needs? In terms of policy opportunities for the urban commons at a EU level, there are several steps that should be taken as priority:

• Policies to enhance local control and public-civic partnerships.
• The Urban Agenda for the EU could be strengthened on a profound level by emphasising culture and civil society. Civil society should be allowed to play an active role in the partnerships in the Urban Agenda for the EU with culture as a cross-cutting issue in all partnerships.
• Commons as a Legal Category: The EU could acknowledge the commons as a way of organising and governing resources separate from public or private; it should even give guidance on law-making that takes the commons into account at the national or local level.
• The agenda for the collaborative economy should be translated into regulations that favour platforms with:
• respect for local ecosystems;
• community based and democratic online platforms.
• The action plan on the circular economy could be an opportunity if it is adapted to a localised/regional scale as opposed to its present globalised scope.
• Funding programmes should favour community based practices and civil-public partnerships.

Digital commons, knowledge and peer-to-peer collaboration

How can the EU respond to epochal shifts in technology, commerce and social practice and devise policies appropriate to the current age? How can knowledge be managed in a way that favours socially and ecologically sustainable stewardship?

Knowledge commons need flexible institutional and legal frameworks that allow self-organisation while also limiting unfair centralisation and appropriation of knowledge. Internet infrastructures need to favor democracy, openness and transparency going forward. Copyright regimes should be flexible – protecting the public domain and providing for exceptions and limitations to allow for the broad sharing and access in the realms of culture and science.

Internet and infrastructure

Maintaining an open democratic internet within the principles of net neutrality, interoperability, open standards, decentralisation and private data protection is key.

• Internet infrastructures should be managed in the public interest and, when possible, governed and/or owned by the public or community.
• We need investment in data infrastructures that allow individuals and communities to manage personal information in decentralised ways with the affirmative consent of users.

Digital Single Market (DSM)

• The follow up to the EU Agenda for the Collaborative Economy should acknowledge the problems with centralised platforms through regulation. This would include ensuring:
• a socially sustainable collaborative economy where workers’ rights are protected;
• the support of community based alternatives;
• the enhancement of data sovereignty.
• Spectrum legislation determining radio spectrum bandwidth for broadband digital service should have a significant amount of bandwidth that is legally earmarked for local, community based small-scale businesses or non-profit initiatives.
• To ensure the open internet, net neutrality should be upheld in a truly non-discriminatory way.

Further pro-commons initiatives that should be supported and expanded under DSM would include:

• the support and enablement of community Wifi;
• EU public-civic partnerships through crowdfunding;
• investments in open source software (FOSS Pilot).

Open Science and public goods

The EU has made huge progress over the last five years in embracing Open Science and Citizen science initiatives. Open science describes the on-going transition in the way research is performed, researchers collaborate and knowledge is shared. Citizen science is an open, participatory and inclusive approach for knowledge generation. However, there are still important steps to take in terms of intellectual property and data management.  Particularly:

• The EU Cloud initiative should ensure the use of data in the collective interest.
• The EU should explore and implement socially responsible and non-exclusive licensing conditions on its research funding programmes (e.g. Horizon 2020).
• Equally the EU should implement conditions on limited intellectual property rights for its innovation inducement Horizon Prizes, meant to create incentives for innovation through the granting of a monetary prize.
• In order to move towards an adequate incentive framework for a sustainable innovation system and to encourage knowledge sharing, the EU should explore the idea of open patents.

Culture goods, co-creation and copyright

In order to favour access to knowledge and culture and a dynamic knowledge economy, the upcoming copyright reform needs to favour the public domain, use and re-use and knowledge commons.

• The EU should recognise that, once a work is in the public domain (i.e. copyright and related rights in a work have expired), the works should stay in the public domain.
• In the copyright reform, the EU would need to expand exceptions and limitations to include:
• text and data mining;
• improved access to cultural materials for people with disabilities;
• non-commercial sharing;
• user-generated content; e-book lending and conservation by librarians;
• freedom of panorama; and
• the elimination of copyright for databases.
• Also in copyright reform: Ancillary copyright and neighbouring rights will add additional layers of rights hampering the free flow of knowledge and should not be further pursued.
• The EU’s stance in EU trade agreements and at World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) should focus more on the public interest instead of the expansion of rights and more enforcement of rights.

[i] Capra & Mattei, The Ecology of Law, 2016.

[ii] Elinor Ostrom and Charlotte Hess, Understanding Knowledge as a Commons, 2007, MIT Press.

[iii] Bollier, Think Like a Commoner, 2014, p. 112.

NB: This executive summary and recommendations are based on our full paper ‘Supporting the Commons: Opportunities in the EU policy landscape’, which will be published shortly. For the full paper and this summary we would like to acknowledge the inputs from Carolyn Whitten, David Bollier, Melanie du Long Rosnay, Dimitar Dimitrov, Ina Studenroth, Bruno Carballa, Marjolein Cremer, Tsveta Andreeva and Wouter van den Bos.

www.commonsnetwork.eu

Photos by p1ndar0

The post Supporting the Commons: Opportunities in the EU policy landscape appeared first on P2P Foundation.