“Cultural Commons: (How) do we put it into practice in Medellin?” was a workshop held in Medellin, Colombia on 21 and 22 of June 2018, co-organised by Penny Travlou, a cultural geographer / ethnographer (Edinburgh College of Art/University of Edinburgh) and Platohedro, a local Medellin non-profit organization. The report (below, in English) reviews the two workshop days.

Context + What inspired us

The idea for these two workshops originated in earlier research and collaboration with Platohedro in the project Medellin Urban Innovation: Harnessing innovation in city development for social equity and well-being (MUI). MUI was a two-year (2015-2017) research collaboration between academic and non-academic institutions in the United Kingdom and Colombia, funded by the Newton Institutional Links Grant from the British Council and led by the University of Edinburgh in partnership with Heriot-Watt University, UK. The findings from the MUI scoping study suggest that there is indeed a thriving art community and emerging creative practices in Medellin. By merging traditional Colombian cultural values (buen vivir, buen conocer), participatory pedagogies and new media art values (Do-It-With-Others, free libre knowledge, open source, peer-to-peer learning), these grassroots art collectives and communities are instrumental in the making of new cultural heritage in Medellin. Looking at the ways different groups and initiatives within the network work together and, also with the local communities (comunas) and disaffected youth, makes it evident that their practices are based on creating collaboratively in a non-hierarchical manner.

From the initial MUI findings, it is also clear that this collaborative practice is a rather novel approach to cultural production, particularly as this is performed within and across a network. However, although this makes their practice of great interest across their international peers, recognition of the cultural values produced through these collaborative practices by local public art institutions and the municipality in Medellin is still lacking. This may be due to a failure to communicate this work to a language understood by public art institutions and municipal authorities. The MUI project also found that all these art collectives, organisations and communities that form a network of collaboration in Medellin face the same limitations: their collaborative work is primarily based on affinities; it is still informal and lacks of tools to become self-sustainable. The initial work identified a clear interest in co-creating cultural commons. By this term, we mean, a) something that participants create together, such as Wikipedia, Report: “Defining Cultural Commons in Medellin” Workshops, 21-22 June 2018 2 which participants research, write and manage together online, or ancient indigenous practices forged and passed along by a particular group e.g. Minga (‘communal work’ in Andean indigenous cultures) and, b) a way of creativity that embraces values such of sharing, community and stewardship as opposed to privatization, enclosure and exploitation.

The Cultural Commons workshops stem from these initial findings and represent a new line of investigation engaging with a network of local art producers and independent cultural initiatives to co-design a methodology that, a) can look at, reflect upon and evaluate individual organisations within an ecosystem i.e. network of collaboration and, b) become a tool for the collaborating network to communicate their practice and production of cultural values to public art institutions, other local authorities and funding bodies in Medellin. During meetings and discussions between the art collectives and Penny Travlou in 2017, the group agreed on the importance of developing together a methodology that can enable them to reflect on their practice(s), collaborative ethos, sharing values, common goods production as well as weaknesses. Co-designing a methodological toolkit is a good start to understand the position of the various art collectives, initiatives and groups in the cultural production ecosystem in Medellin and to establish a dialogue with local public art institutions and city administration.

The two workshops were based on a collaborative methodology where all participants worked together to define and explore key concepts: “cultural commons” in Workshop 1 and “intangible cultural heritage” in Workshop 2. For the exploration of “cultural commons” in Workshop 1, the Purpose Statement of the Coalition for the Cultural Commons (https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Coalition_for_the_Cultural_Commons) was presented in the first part of the workshop to engage participants with the term, followed with examples of commoning practices. For the cultural commons methodology toolkit in Workshop 2, a series of key terms from the Arts Collaboratory Network (http://www.artscollaboratory.org/), a translocal  ecosystem of 25 international art organisations including Platohedro, was used to develop the tools. Then, to explore the concept of “intangible cultural heritage”, we followed the official one by UNESCO (https://ich.unesco.org/en/what-is-intangible-heritage-00003) focusing particularly on the characteristics of the term: inclusiveness, representation, community-based co-creation and bridging traditional together with contemporary everyday cultural values and practices. Overall, we were interested in finding out whether and how we can re-define “intangible cultural heritage” as a “cultural commons” where cultural values are co-created, shared between groups and communities, support openness, collaboration and peer learning and thus become a common good.

FULL REPORT:

ENGLISH Report Cultural Commons Medellin share by the P2P Foundation on Scribd

The post Cultural Commons: (How) do we put it into practice in Medellin appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Q: Dear Lynn: Can you tell us a bit about the history of your engagement, and also about the interesting aspects of the place and region where you are living now?

A: I came of age in the late 60’s and early 70’s, when a lot was happening on high school and college campuses in the US, and I was very influenced by the civil rights movement, anti-war movement, women’s movement, and urban political movements of that time. I knew coming out of college that I wanted to dedicate my time to making change, but had no idea how to go about it.  I rather haphazardly started working in a system of food co-ops in the Midwest US, so I started early with economic forms.

I was ever so lucky to run into people who knew a lot more than I did.  This period of my life was formative and transformative in every way – politically, theoretically, organizationally, ideologically, personally.  I got an understanding of how the world works, and an understanding of how I fit into that world – why it is the way it is, and why I am the way I am.  I developed a healthy anger about the system, and (as a person who has always had basic access to food and shelter and education) for the first time understood the effects of capitalism on me personally, in addition to the obvious ills it has brought upon the world.  And I didn’t like it, on a gut level.  

All of my work since then has been shaped by my development during that period.  For a while I worked low-wage jobs to pay the rent, and worked on various political and economic programs.  I happened into computer programming around 1980, when you could get a job with 6 months of night school (my art degree from college wasn’t that helpful in terms of jobs).  This has been my career ever since, and through it I’ve had the opportunity to observe capitalism at play in many industries, and have been able to develop skills which I hope are useful to the movement.

Another formative period in my life was having a couple kids, and raising them largely as a single parent while working full time.  Being responsible for developing human beings teaches a person a lot, and for me this was around the nuances and complexity of thinking holistically – unlike computers, which appreciate logic and basically do what you tell them.  Although I loved this process, there wasn’t time for deep political involvement.  It did however round out my understanding of capitalism in a different way.

Now I’m in a different phase of life, the kids are on their own; I’ve retired and am living on US social security with my later-in-life partner Bob.  

We moved with some trusted friends to the country in Southwest Wisconsin 5 years ago, which enabled us to become debt free and to live reasonably sustainably, in our mini housing co-op.  With 40 acres of peace and quiet and good internet, it is great working conditions for us at this stage, and for me as a city person it is very interesting to become familiar with rural issues.

As you mentioned, this is an interesting area.  Although we are mostly working with people elsewhere in the world, we are also putting down roots here.   For example, I’m working a lot this summer with a local herbal network, which coordinates growing, harvesting, and selling food and medicinal herbs locally, and which is using our software.

People here consciously identify with our bio-region, the Driftless Area (where the glaciers never came).  There are a number of organizations working in the area on different levels, such as small organic farming, rotational grazing, permaculture, solar and bio-diesel energy, water quality, small business ecosystems, teaching of traditional and sustainable skills, co-op and network experiments of various kinds.  There are lots of pieces that have potential to be organized into something cohesive to enable a better future here.

Q: You play a role in the development of software infrastructures for peer production, such as open value accounting. Can you explain to us what that project is, why it is important and what is the nature of your own contribution to that project? How do you divvy up the work with your partner Bob Haugen, who is also part of that project?

A: My current full time project, with my partner Bob, is called Network Resource Planning (NRP) – like Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), but for networks.  It does open accounting, as you mention, but more as a side effect of being operational software for economic networks.  We focus on economic networks that support peer production and other egalitarian means of production, and which build commons.  We consider our software to be very aligned with the P2P Foundation’s goals, especially as those more and more include the material side of production in addition to the immaterial.

There isn’t other open source operational software out there that was designed bottom up for economic networks.  And networks have emerged as the form for this time of our productive forces.  The software is unique in that it uses methods developed over the last decades in manufacturing and supply chain settings, but takes that into the age of networks.  It records people’s contributions of all kinds, and links them together in flows of resources, where output from one process is input to another.  As value is realized, the returning resource (usually money but doesn’t have to be) is distributed back along those resource flows according to rules embodied in a “value equation” decided democratically.

For us, the software is a part of a round of experimentation with new economic forms.  The software, like most of the alternative economic experiments going on, is transitional.  It is designed on the ground working with living groups, so it has ups and downs with the groups themselves.  But in the process, we are consolidating a flexible model and set of requirements that can support P2P production and exchange into the future, which I suspect is a more important contribution than the software itself.

We also spent some time working with a group in Nova Scotia, which had lots of potential but has unfortunately disbanded, on alternative regional/local economic analysis for the province.  We did a working prototype on a higher level, looking for gaps and opportunities for various communities and clusters by higher level resource, like fish or timber.  This software uses the basic resource flow network model that our NRP software uses, and was designed to feed data back and forth with the lower level software, so that real data can inform the regional view and gaps visible at the regional view can give insight into the formation of networks on the ground.

Another track we are on is to collaboratively develop a common vocabulary for interoperability between different software systems used by P2P economic groups.  This is one of my main focuses lately, and I’ve been meeting with various groups and people in a slow process to agree on the pieces of vocabulary we need.  There are a couple small experiments in motion on this, and hopefully more soon.  I see this as a key infrastructure component for developing networks of networks.

The NRP project is Bob’s vision originally.  Like me, he has focused on the economic side of movement work.  And he spent many years working in manufacturing and supply chains. He did a few other versions of this software (a timber network, several food networks) before he started working with Sensorica (an open source hardware network) on the current incarnation of the software for open value networks.  I helped on the side for a several years, and was able to join him full time a couple years ago.   Last year, we co-founded Mikorizal Software (http://mikorizal.org) to more solidify the effort.

These days Bob and I are equal partners.  We share in designing and writing the code, figuring out our approach, and collaborating with our network partners.  We take a daily walk up the hill to talk about design issues, plan the day, and discuss larger direction – and get some exercise and enjoy the woods too.  We do have somewhat different strengths, so we sometimes focus on different roles.  But we both have decades of full life cycle software development experience, so mostly we just swap back and forth as needed.  It is a fun and productive collaboration.  And we truly hope we are creating something useful.

Q: Do you think we can move beyond open value accounting to a fully alternative mode of production. Do you share the belief of many around the P2P Foundation that open supply chains will be an important part of a phase transition?

A: I do share the belief that we can move to a full phase transition, from our current dominant mode of production, to networked cooperative transfers of the resources we need for life.  But it is not a certainty; there are many directions things can go, and difficult struggles ahead.  Really, when it comes down to it, we MUST completely transform our current system, for the good of the species and the planet.  But we can also only move FROM where we are now.

Open value accounting, as we have implemented it, is part of an effort to move from where we are.  The ideas are useful in providing infrastructure support to open value networks, cooperatives, any non-competitive economic experiment.  But many of the concepts around the way resource flows work will be applicable beyond this intermediate phase to full phase transition.  

Supply chains are part of the history of these ideas, but now we in our productive lives are moving beyond supply chains to complete networks, then networks of networks, then ecosystems of networks.

At the same time, the economic effort, although fundamental, is still only one leg of the several that are needed for full phase transition.  It needs to complement changes in political, ecological, and other spheres of life for this all to become possible.

Q: I am sure you have had many broken dreams over time, given the many failures of alternative political and social projects in the last few decades What gives you hope and what is your recipe for social change?

A: I’m actually an optimist.  Although I hope this isn’t just a personality trait and that the 99% can manage to collectively move beyond the decaying but still incredible forces arrayed against us.

It is certain that the system can’t continue on its current trajectory, can’t fix itself either, and is either locked in stagnancy or imploding (although it tends to lash out at the same time).  Everywhere you look, competition and personal power are holding back the potential of society to become more productive, and really holding back further human development in every way.  And with resource depletion, pollution, and most importantly climate change constraining the requirement for compounding expansion embodied in the capitalist system, it does seem like things are coming to a head.  I hope so.

I don’t know if I have a recipe, it is pretty complex.  But here are some thoughts.

Looking at our software, I see a small tactical effort.  But if many people build economic networks on the ground, then network the networks regionally or globally (the heavy is local, light is global concept makes sense), we will start to have something substantial, something that actually supports people’s needs.

And again, we need to address all spheres of life, and they need to support each other.  There is the political, of course.  I don’t really think that economic alternatives will sort of naturally supplant capitalism by themselves.  

And there is the ecological.  When we think of ecosystems of networks, we need to really include the eco part.  An ecosystem needs to include the environment and the people, including our economy.  If we look at networks and resource flows, clearly the resources that flow between us and the environment need to be balanced for the need of all species, just as much as we want that for humanity.  We have to move beyond resources as commodities.

Q: Where do you see yourself five to ten years from now?

A: Hard question.  Depends a lot on what comes down.

I’m not tied to writing software, and hope to be doing less and less of that.  So I hope to get to a place where our software and model contributions are complete enough to be used and forked by more people. This means also that we will have worked through preliminary vocabulary and protocols that will support P2P interoperability between networks, and people can move forward more easily with whatever software they can imagine and create lots of new and useful infrastructure.

So, the direction I want to generally go is to help build networks of networks.  And to use this to help move towards bio-regional development of sustainable ecosystems.  

In conjunction with software and infrastructure, I’d like to personally focus more on helping develop new forms of organization and connection.  And related to this, I hope to contribute in the area of human development, our learning to work together in new types of economic organizations, and in the process becoming better kinds of humans.  This will both be necessary for change to happen, and personally liberating for people.

Five to ten years could be a time of incremental development, or change could start to spin out quickly in feedback loops, as it tends to do when new periods are being birthed.  If nothing else, it looks to be an interesting ride.

Lynn Foster’s Bio

Lynn grew up as the oldest child of two economics professors, graduated from Carleton College in the U.S. in 1973, and has lived in the midwest U.S. since then.

Her day job for three decades was software consulting in different industries, including manufacturing, railroads, gas utilities, food, health care, accounting, and others.  She focused on business analysis, modeling, development methodologies, project management, coding, and testing.

The post 100 Women who are co-creating the P2P Society: Lynn Foster on open value accounting appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Q: Dear Ruth, tell us something about your general background and what Furtherfield is about?

A: In the mid-90s, the web changed for ever what it meant to be an artist. In London the Brit Art scene – agencies, galleries and media for circulating and promoting art- had started to dominate the relationship between the viewer/audience and art experience in a way that restricted what it was possible for art to do- and who could access it. The art market framed the work.

In 1996 I started working with Marc Garrett, an artist with a background in street art, bulletin boards and pirate radio in Bristol. Backspace, an early London cybercafe provided the inspiration for loosely organised, free artistic experimentation. It’s hard to imagine now, in the age of web2.0 (where the major web platforms are provided to offer a smooth exchange, in quiet service of commercial interests) the thrill of creating new platforms for art in the early days of the web. We engaged different kinds of people according to a specific artistic intent. Artists conciously crafted particular social relations with their platforms or artwares. [1] These things, connected with cultures of openness and freedom in the world of software and engineering, and undermined the idea of the individual genius artist; allowing us to reconnect with contemporary social and political contexts.[2]

In 1997 New York artist duo MTTA famously made ‘A Simple Net Art Diagram‘ in which a lightning bolt strikes in the space between two computers with the label ‘The Art Happens Here’. The computers stood in for people. The art happens between people- the value of the work lies in the mutual subjectivity of the art experience. “Intermedia” approaches of Fluxus artists in the 70s were amplified in art that took digital and social networks, as its medium and context. It connected people across different localities. It’s users made software (instructions, protocols and tools), and files and network content available for circulation and remix as artistic materials in a whole new way. They built platforms and systems for sharing and exchanging these on their own terms.

This provided the backround for development and now Furtherfield is an online international community, gallery and lab space for arts, technology and social change. Our mission now is to work with extraordinary artists, techies and activists – locally, nationally and internationally; to develop experimental spaces, platforms and programmes; for creative collaboration and peer production of emancipated, thriving communities.

This video, created by Orlagh Woods by Artquest gives a pretty full description of what we are doing at the moment and why.

Q: Could you tell us what the Furtherfield Commons is? When did it start? What kind of projects does it involve? How do you link Furtherfield Commons with the nearby local communities?

A: Furtherfield Commons opened last year in Finsbury Park, North London as a community lab space, for people to learn more about digital culture; to learn how to work with new technologies on their own terms; to better understand the devices in their hands, on their clothes, in their lines of sight etc; to demystify and open up the black box of technology. Furtherfield Gallery has been based in the heart of the park since 2012 (before this Furtherfield hosted 3-5 exhibitions since 2004 in a warehouse gallery called HTTP). These venues in a metropolitan public space enable us to engage a hyper-diverse public with the work of artists from an international community.

Digital culture is changing society: the way we relate to each other; how power flows, decisions are made, and politics is done; shaping environmental stresses. Artists help us to feel and evaluate these societal shifts. By presenting the work of artists who focus on these effects, and then talking with audiences and participants, we learn what matters to people. Our visitors are often surprised and glad to be addressed in this way by artists.

With Furtherfield Commons we also want to experiment with how a commons might work for an arts and technology led organisation. Discussions of the commons often (unhelpfully) centre around how to manage and share scarce resources – materals, knowledge, praxis – and get stuck on questions of ownership, fairness etc. For us, it is at least as important together, to imagine, devise, maintain and steward, places, infrastructures, systems and communities for a good life for more diverse people and all living things.

While our consumer culture invites us to constantly outsource responsibility for these activities and knowledges, we hope that the events and programmes we host at Furtherfield Commons, in partnership with a network of thoughtful and critical individuals and organsations, will help more people to imagine that a good life is the business of us all.

We link with nearby local communities by connecting with a range of local enthusiasms, interests and needs; working in partnership with educational and criticial technology groups like Fossbox and Codasign we are able to offer accessible activities for young people and those not normally actively involved with technology. In collaboration with artist and game theorist, Dr Mary Flanagan we have developed Play Your Place, to bring people together to co-create shared visions of their locality through drawing and play. Last year we hosted a series of Class Wargames events inspired by the Situationist Guy Debord’s Game of War. People gathered to play boardgames based on historic battles, in order to learn about and develop revolutionary strategies and tactics from history. We are also developing partnerships with local arts organisations like All Change Arts who have long had their roots in the local area, developing extraordinary work with those who might otherwise be excluded from the arts. Last year before Furtherfield Commons opened we worked with Bright Sparks, an electrical recycling and community design enterprise on a co-created, network performance about the impact of e-waste, as part of Helen Varley Jamieson’s We Have A Situation, with 5 European organisations looking at local issues with a global impact. We plan to build on these activities this year with the upcoming Sex and Security workshops with Fossbox. The Museum of Contemporary Commodities by artist, Paula Crutchlow (Blind Ditch) and cultural geographer Dr Ian Cook (of Followthethings.com) looks at trade justice and how data uses shape our physical spaces and social relations especially in retail. We are also planning Summer Saturday club for 600 young people and their guardians over the next two years. We will work with partners to devise and share new ways to learn about the principles of programming through artistic concepts and approaches drawing on the ethos of the 70s art school. As the result of a recent Digital Futures: Money No Object collaboration with The White Building and the V&A we hope soon to host a series of workshops to support new thinking on the relationship between art, value and money by Brett Scott, author of the The Heretic’s Guide to Global Finance, Hacking the Future of Money. We are always interested in new proposals for uses for the space.

Q: Could you please tell us a bit more about your concept DIWO (Do-It-With-Others)? How relevant is it to the ‘commons’ and the ‘peer-to-peer’ values?

A: We coined the term DIWO – Do It With Others in 2006 to extend the DIY(Do It Yourself) ethos of early net art. This was inspired by punk, in which you used the instruments and bare-bones skills you could muster, to bash out culture on your own terms. DIWO consciously adopted a collaborative approach, using the web as an experimental artistic medium and distribution system to connect with diverse people in unusual ways and to foment grass-roots creativity and solidarity.

Applying the principles of earlier Mail Art projects- designed to sidestep artworld gatekeeping and heirarchy – we instigated two E-Mail art projects. We proposed that “peers connect, communicate and collaborate, creating controversies, structures and a shared grass roots culture, through both digital online networks and physical environments.”[3]

Participants worked across time zones and geographic and cultural distances with digital images, audio, text, code and software. They created streams of art-data, art-surveillance, instructions and proposals in relay, producing multiple threads and mash-ups. Co-curated using VOIP and webcams the exhibition at HTTP Gallery displayed all contributions in a projected email inbox, alongside an installation of prints of every image, and a running copy of every video and audio file submitted. Every submission was considered an artwork – or part of a larger, collective artwork – for the DIWO project.

From these early events a set of DIWO principles have emerged. It’s DIWO if it:-

• Uses the metaphors, tools, cultures and processes of digital & physical networks.
• Is led by experimental artistic processes rather than utilitarian or theoretical concerns.
• Disrupts traditional hierarchies and concepts of ownership, working with decentralized peer 2 peer practices.
• Involves more and more diverse people (as unwitting and active collaborators), ideas and social ecologies.
• Generates unruly and provocative relationships between symbolic meanings and material effects.
• Co-creates the conditions for a more emancipated art context.

In recent years there have been DIWO festivals in Finland and Denmark, and other individuals and groups are making it there own. The DIWO resource gives more information and links to projects and essays

Q: What is the future vision of Furtherfield? What’s next for the long term?

A: We have had the good fortune to grow up alongside an international network of individuals and organisations of critical practicioners, thinkers and doers. Our next 3 year programme (of exhibitions, workshops, debates) sets out to properly engage with the social, environmental, financial challenges of our times. We will be building on existing relationships and partnerships as well as actively seeking partners to develop emancipatory cultural infrastructures and projects viable and effective within the Neoliberal context.

Our vision is that through imaginative and critical engagement with practices in art and technology, more and more diverse people strengthen the expressive and democratic potential of our shared techno-social landscape, on their own terms.

Which brings us to this week’s launch of The NetArtizens Project

A month of artistic collaboration, exhibition & discussion with 3 flavours of online participation. This runs from March 2 – April 2, 2015 and is a Furtherfield project created in collaobraion with Nick Briz & Joseph Yølk Chiocchi as part of the Art of Networked Practice | Online Symposium

We invite all artists, scholars, educators, and citizens of the Net to explore, express, and debate the role of the network in our individual and collective practices. Artists are also invited to submit work to the NetArtizens Open Online Exhibition, an evolving showcase of works submitted between March 2 – April 2, 2015. All project activity, questions and issues will be incorporated into the culminating virtual roundtable global exchange.

Visit The Net Artizens Project portal and get involved.

[1]    For instance in 2003 we created with Neil Jenkins, VisitorsStudio an online place for real-time, multi-user mixing, collaborative creation, many to many dialogue and networked performance and play. This was a social, multilayered space that provided a site for projects such as Dissention Convention in which a collaborative polemic could be simultaneously created, viewed and remixed in different locations around the world.

[2]    In 2011 Furtherfield produced Collaboration and Freedom – The World of Open Source Art– a collection of artworks, texts and resources about freedom and openness in the arts, in the age of the Internet. Freedom to collaborate – to use, modify and redistribute ideas, artworks, experiences, media and tools. Openness to the ideas and contributions of others, and new ways of organising and making decisions together. This was commissioned by Arts Council England and is mirrored at the Foundation for P2P Alternatives

[3]    http://www.furtherfield.org/blog/furtherfield/do-it-others-diwo-e-mail-art-netbehaviourhttp://www.furtherfield.org/blog/furtherfield/do-it-others-diwo-e-mail-art-netbehaviour

Ruth Catlow’s Bio:

Ruth Catlow is an artist, curator, and co-founder, co-director of Furtherfield, a community and network for arts, technology and social change since 1997. Furtherfield’s public gallery and lab venues in London, provide a physical interface for exhibitions, events and workshops. An online hub provides a forum for exchange, collaboration and critical review for international artists, technologists and activists to strengthen the expressive and democratic potential of shared techno-social landscape.

The post 100 Women who are co-creating the P2P Society: Ruth Catlow of Furtherfield on the commons, art and technology appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Q:  You are mostly known for your work around food sovereignty, can you tell us a bit of personal history and how you decided to get engaged on that issue; then, how do think your work is related to the concept of the commons?

A: From a very early age I questioned injustices of the world and looked towards collective movements for solutions. When I started university, I believed the only logical path was to study biology – the study of life. I then melded that into the local food, environmental and peace movements, all of which I was an active member. I continued to approach solutions through a wide lens. For example, I studied fishing cooperatives to explore whether they could not only market fish, but also organize and represent small-scale fishermen in the policy arena. As I concentrated on fisheries policy, I saw global problems that were common to both fishing and farming communities. Then, I had the opportunity to collaborate with La Via Campesina, the movement that coined the phrase “food sovereignty” in 1996. And that was it. We all depend on food. Food is life. Food sovereignty is relevant in every corner of the world, and resonates with a common fundamental right.

Food sovereignty is a holistic approach to a global need. The seven principles of food sovereignty are as follows: Food: A Basic Human Right, Agrarian Reform, Protecting Natural Resources, Reorganizing Food Trade, Ending the Globalization of Hunger, and Social Peace and Democratic Control. Farmers are at the heart of the dialogue to actualize food sovereignty, yet its essence is inclusive, bringing together many sectors of society to protect a common good.

The commons is also a holistic approach to actively ensure the health and well being to all that society shares. The commons approach is broader than food sovereignty by incorporating aspects of life that relate to the natural; social and institutional; political; and, intellectual and cultural. Food sovereignty covers those same themes, but within the umbrella of food. Both the commons and food sovereignty movements are gaining traction around the world due to increased corporate dominance, environmental disregard, economic slavery and political oppression. We must work together as a global society. Only then can we protect our planet for future generations and prevent our commons from being be used as weapons of oppression.

Q: Your work transcends the focus on food; can you describe your other specific concerns and work, but also how you see any potential transition to other alternative economic systems?

A: I firmly believe that new economic systems, not necessarily based on monetary principles, have to be embraced globally. We see current economic structures dissolving in every corner of the world, as the rich get richer and the earth is ravaged. Modern economic systems have already collapsed or are currently collapsing and the only solution is to build new models that are adaptable to local and regional circumstances.

In 2010 and 2011, I travelled through five countries, speaking with farmers and fishermen about their struggles and solutions within the context of food sovereignty. Their voices contributed to my Food Voices project and they have been featured in articles, on the radio, through blogs and in a book. Many spoke about building alternative economic systems. I would like to raise their voices here.

Felix Lopez is the Coordinator of Production at the Aracal Cooperative in Urachichi, Venezuela. He speaks about the cooperative structure as a new mode of living and working and ultimately, true food sovereignty. Felix expounds on this idea: “In order for it to be a true revolution, we had to change the model of production, which had been production by and for a single owner. The socialism that we have been working to move forward is not a form of socialism that is just following some recipe of Marx or of Mao. It is a Venezuelan style socialism. We are taking different concepts and adapting them to our conditions. So, a group of people came together to write down exactly what it is we are striving for. And to convince those people who did not yet believe in this new model. It is hard work, but it is not impossible.”

Steve Decater from Live Power Community Farm in Covelo, California is focused on building an economic system that benefits all and requires a shift in consciousness. He runs a biodynamic farm dependent on natural power sources: horses to plow the fields, wind and solar to provide energy and people to harvest the crops. He also runs a community supported agriculture program, which Steve views as integral to creating new models.

Steve explains eloquently: “I make a distinction between community based agriculture and market based agriculture. Our farm is 100% community based, in that we grow food for about 200 households. And those 200 households are co-producers with us. What I am talking about is an associative economy where the economic process is governed by the needs of all the players. When you look at that together, and not in the alienated way that you have in the market economy, then people can see what the farmer’s needs are. The farmer can hear what the eaters needs are. They can both talk about what the earth’s needs are. Then, a consciousness comes out of that that is bigger than any of those individual players. The bottom line is not individual profit, but the good of the community as a whole.”

What we are looking at are economies based on community and compassion. Compassion for each other and for the earth. It brings the world together is a way that has not yet happened at the scale of the current population of the earth. Economic Localization, Transition Towns, Slow Money, Business Alliance for Global Economies are gaining popularity. They all approach nature and humans as part of one ecosystem, sharing a finite space, working together with all members of the community. By refocusing on local needs – people, nature, culture and knowledge -the tide can be turned.

Q: How do you see the role of digital media, in the context of the specific approach we take at the P2P Foundation, which is to focus on networks as tools not just for communication, but crucially for the self-organisation of value creation, and a deep change in the mode of production. Do you see any commonalities with your own work?

A: Over the last five years, the world has seen the potential of digital media. Through digital campaigns, Arab Spring was organized. Digital exposures of social injustices and police brutality have been circulated to organize for policy changes in as disparate places as the United States and India. The local food movements have expanded their local and regional reach through digital networking. There is no doubt that social media is a crucial tool for change.

Digital media has played a large role in the grassroots development of the local food movement. In the past few years, in the United States, the local food movement has not only grown through traditional organizing, but also through the Internet. The Internet has been a tool to create new market places, reaching people searching for community supported agriculture and fisheries programs. It is used to organize people to take political action to ensure a local, state or federal policy is either upheld or opposed. There are more and more interactive sites, where people can post their own stories of struggle or victory; thus, motivating the larger community to become engaged.

Q:  Have you done any thinking, and/or practice, on the issue of access to these networks by those people who have less means and possibilities to have access?Access to digital media and the networks?

A: As the potential and expanse of the Internet grows, there are issues with which we must contend. First of all, an estimated 4.4 billion people do not have access to the Internet, according to a 2014 study by McKinsey and Company.[i] The following statistics offer some insight to the current limitations of digital networking: One quarter of the world’s population is offline in India, as are 730 million in China; 210 million in Indonesia; 150 million in Bangladesh; nearly 100 million in Brazil; and 50 million in the United States. While looking at population percentages, 99.5% of the population in Myanmar is offline, as is 98% in Ethiopia and nearly 95% in Tanzania and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

It is a very complex situation, as the governments may be unstable and access to basic needs, such as shelter, food and potable water may be scarce. Education, infrastructure and the energy to power devices and Internet transmissions are often in the hands of the few, allowing them to draw wealth from increased use and charges. Can a sustainable, ecological infrastructure be built that supports the transmission of digital media, as well as the devices used to access it? We need to bring the control and distribution of access into the hands of the commons, while developing technologies that respect the earth. Removing barriers to information is crucial, as social media and digital networking are integral tools for global change.

These days, more people without access to the digital world do have cell phones. For those who are literate, text messages are a great way to spread the word, to create dialogues and to activate change. Additionally, it is the responsibility of those who do have access to transmit messages from those without to the digital society. One of the goals of Food Voices was to bring the voices of those fighting in the trenches – in the fields and on the boats – to a greater audience. That is how we can support those without digital access, without a digital voice.

Q: Does your work leave room for any specific concern about sustainability, our relation with nature ?

A: The local food and the food sovereignty movements are embedded in sustainability and the interactions between humans and the rest of the natural world. It is impossible to separate them. The food sovereignty movement recognizes that food is not a commodity. Food is a system of relationships that intertwines soil, life, water, air, fish, other animals and humans. The health of a food system depends directly on the nature of those relationships. It is also the relationship between those who provide food and the rest of the consumers. Food sovereignty ensures that local communities are fed with healthy and culturally appropriate foods that respect the environment. It is impossible for food sovereignty or any new economic model to be realized without acknowledging that nature is at the core.

In 1987 United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development defined sustainable development to be, “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” [ii] Unfortunately, sustainability has become a buzzword and corporations, looking to increase their profit margins, have captured the term. For example, as demand for organic and hormone free products have increased, the corporate domination of the organics market has grown, leaving small scale producers in the dust, as they cannot compete with the lower prices of mass organic production, nor the increasing bureaucracy of obtaining organic labels. In this context, sustainable food systems focus on the production method, but tend to overlook the political framework. Sustainability is one aspect of Food Sovereignty, one aspect of the commons, and we must ensure that its integrity is protected to ensure we have a common language.

Q: I would like to focus on fisheries, a common resource that needs to have a space in both the food sovereignty and commons movements.

A: Until recently, the local food movements have approached seafood with trepidation. Rather than applying the same principles of land-based food, many consumers look for easy answers. Green for eat; yellow for caution; and, red for stay away. Unfortunately, those directives take one fish species at a time, rather than looking at entire ecosystems – both marine environments and human communities. Community supported fisheries and fishermen selling at farmers markets are on an increase. Consumers are learning how to fillet, what to do with a whole fish and how to identify a fresh one. When consumers connect to the people who catch their fish and who care about the ocean health, they become advocates for the community-based fishermen and the marine ecosystem.

It is essential that these links be made and that the food and commons movements understand that fish and the waters where they live are a public resource. They are a global commons. Unfortunately, for the past 30 years a fisheries management regime, called catch shares or individual fishing quotas (IFQs) or individual transferable quotas (ITQs), has been gaining popularity amongst governments and corporations. IFQs remove fish as a common resource and privatize the right to fish by allowing fish quotas to be bought and sold as a commodity. Proponents of IFQs are looking to sell and trade future fish populations on the stock market. A common resource is being sold to the highest bidders.

The pressure that puts on the fish populations, the environments and the communities is unfathomable. The IFQ system began in New Zealand in the 1970’s. By the 1990’s, most of their fisheries were under an IFQ system. When the red snapper populations began plummeting, the New Zealand government had to reduce the total number of fish caught. The industry responded with a series of legal actions, claiming the fish are private property. Fortunately, in that case, the judge dismissed the claims and the government did lower the allowable catch to protect the red snapper. In Alaska, IFQ holdings have been at stake in divorce proceedings, and judges divide them up with the rest of the assets and private property.

This system also makes it impossible for people with small catch quotas to survive. Before the program was instituted in the Alaska red king crab fishery, there were 251 boats; within a year after it was implemented the number of remaining boats was 89. In the New Hampshire groundfish fishery, within one year of passing the catch share regulation, nearly 20% of the boats went out of business. The impact of those boats out of the water reverberates throughout the community, closing processors, losing jobs and creating a monopoly among the shore side businesses that survive.

To me, this is one of the greatest assaults against the commons. Fish are a public resource. Water is a commons. No one should be given the exclusive rights to a natural ecosystem that spans state, country and continental boundaries.

[i] Ferdman, Roberto A. (2014, October 2). 4.4 billion people around the world still don’t have Internet. Here’s where they live. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/02/4-4-billion-people-around-the-world-still-dont-have-internet-heres-where-they-live/

[ii] United Nations. 4 August 1987.Report on the World Commission on Environment and Development: “Our Common Future”. Retrieved from http://www.worldinbalance.net/pdf/1987-brundtland.pdf

Andrianna Natsoulas’ BIO:

Throughout most of her career, Andrianna has coordinated with the global food sovereignty movements to protect local food production and distribution, fight trade agreements and build alliances. She has participated in protests around the world from Washington, DC to Cancun to Geneva to Hong Kong and has stood shoulder to shoulder with farmers and fisherfolk to defend their rights to provide local and culturally appropriate food for their communities.

After completing her Master’s of Science degree, Andrianna moved to Washington, D.C. to work for non-profit organizations, including Greenpeace, Public Citizen and Food & Water Watch. She then left D.C. to collaborate with fishing communities in New England. In 2010, Andrianna embarked on a journey to research and write a book called, “Food Voices: Stories from the People Who Feed Us.” “It introduces the concept of food sovereignty, tells the stories of those living it and activates consumers. The voices of over 70 farmers and fisherfolk have been featured on blogs, in newsletters and on the radio. It will be released this September.

More recently, Andrianna has been an independent consultant for local, regional and national organizations and lives in Las Cruces, New Mexico. For more information, visit www.foodvoices.org

The post 100 Women who are co-creating the P2P Society – Andrianna Natsoulas on Food Sovereingty appeared first on P2P Foundation.

The post 100 Women who are co-creating the P2P Society – Oriana Persico of Art is Open Source appeared first on P2P Foundation.