While politicians clearly hope that massive government bailouts will restore the economy, it’s important to recognize that this is not just a financial crisis; it’s a social and political crisis as well. Many legacy market systems – generously subsidized and propped up by state power – are not really trusted or loved by people. Do Americans really want to give $17 billion to scandal-ridden Boeing while letting the post office go bankrupt? It is too early to declare that the old forms will never return, and we do need to remember that the authoritarian option is dangerously close. But it is clear that the future will have a very different pattern.

To me, one thing is obvious: searching for the rudiments of a New Order should be our top priority once emergency needs are taken care of. We need to identify and cultivate new patterns of peer provisioning and place-based governance, especially at the local and regional levels. We need new types of infrastructures and new narratives that understand the practical need for open-source civic and economic engagement.

This is not only necessary to help us deal with climate change and inequality; it is a preemptive necessity for fortifying democracy itself. Reactionary forces are already poised to try to restore a pre-pandemic “normal.” “Prepare for the Ultimate Gaslighting,” writes filmmaker Julio Vincent Gambuto in a wonderful essay on Medium.

Gambuto astutely predicts that corporate America, the White House, and the rest of capitalist establishment will soon mount a massive marketing campaign to minimize the realities we’re now experiencing and rebrand the American Dream as back:

Get ready, my friends. What is about to be unleashed on American society will be the greatest campaign ever created to get you to feel normal again. It will come from brands, it will come from government, it will even come from each other, and it will come from the left and from the right. We will do anything, spend anything, believe anything, just so we can take away how horribly uncomfortable all this feels.

And on top of that, just to turn the screw that much more, will be the one effort that’s even greater: the all-out blitz to make you believe you never saw what you saw. The air wasn’t really cleaner; those images were fake. The hospitals weren’t really a war one; those stories were hyperbole. The numbers were not that high; the press is lying. You didn’t see people in masks standing in the rain risking their lives to vote. Not in America…. But you did. You are not crazy, my friends. And so we are about to be gaslit in a truly unprecedented way.

Put another way, economists Samuel Bowles and Wendy Carlin foresee what they call “the coming battle for the COVID-19 narrative.” In a paper by that title on Vox CEPR Policy Portal, Bowles and Carlin declare the coronavirus to be “a blow to self-interest as a value orientation and laissez-faire as a policy paradigm, both already reeling amid mounting public concerns about climate change.”

They predict that a struggle will soon be underway to lock in the political and economic lessons of the pandemic. There will be a big push for a state-friendly, capitalist-affirming narrative, of course. But that frame will narrow the debate to familiar binary choice of “liberal” vs. “conservative” policy, subtly foreclosing consideration of larger structural reforms or a paradigm shift. We will need only ask ourselves, Do we want a bigger, more active government or free markets (sic)?

Fortunately, the pandemic supplies plentiful evidence to support a more ambitious, breakthrough agenda. The Commons Sector and all sorts of alt-economy approaches, long hovering on the progressive fringe, are now bursting out into mainstream view. Makerspaces have stepped up to make personal protective equipment using 3D printers. The City of Amsterdam has embraced Kate Raworth’s “Doughnut Economics” framework. All sorts of localized commons – for food, social support, emergency responses, etc. – are flourishing through people-powered ingenuity and goodwill. Thanks to the pandemic, once-fringe ideas (universal basic income, wealth taxes, relocalizing supply chains) are seen as practical if not essential options.

Bowles and Carlin argue that the pandemic calls into question the very language of economics and public policy. It is now clear that neither market contracts nor government edicts are capable of solving this and future pandemics. In addition, they argue, a “market vs. state” framing of future possibilities fails to acknowledge what the pandemic is showing — “the contribution of social norms and of institutions that are neither government nor markets – like families, relationships within firms, and community organisations.”

For example, 750,000 ordinary Brits volunteered to help the National Health Service in dealing with the pandemic (only 250,000 could be practically put to work). Among South Koreans, there was a huge outpouring of social cooperation to get tested for the virus. One might also add to these examples the remarkable mutual aid projects that have spontaneously arisen worldwide, as chronicled by George Monbiot in The Guardian.

The pandemic has demonstrated that old systems are broken (and were always broken). But many people, including progressives and political parties, are still not willing to recognize this reality. They can’t quite admit that new institutional forms and social behaviors are entirely possible on a systemic, ongoing basis.

Rather than backslide into the old, familiar ideological mindsets, it’s vital that we stride into the new spaces that have opened up! If you look carefully to the outskirts of mainstream politics and policy – to the many “new economy” experiments underway – you can see the lineaments of a new order. There is a huge constellation of promising experiments and proven archetypes. What they share in common beyond non-capitalist organizational forms is their invisibility on MSNBC, CNN, and among many progressive NGOs.

It’s hard to acknowledge that bottom-up social energies can and do work, that there are developed alternatives awaiting expansion and refinement. These models don’t resemble markets or bureaucracies, however, which is surely one reason they have been marginalized. They are emergent, situation-based social phenomena. They can’t be strictly controlled from the top-down, which may be why traditional power centers are so wary of them. They have a quasi-sovereignty of their own that stems from being grounded in a geography, with real grassroots players, who work together as a living, peer-organized, evolving force. This is precisely why they can accomplish so much serious work so quickly and flexibly, as pandemic mutual-aid initiatives have shown.

As renegade economists, Bowles and Carlin appreciate the limits of markets and the state:

Neither government officials nor private owners and managers of firms know enough to write incentive-based enforceable contracts or government fiats to implement optimal social distancing, surveillance, or deployment of resources to the health sector, including to vaccine development….

[N]on-governmental and nonmarket solutions may actually contribute to mitigating problems that are poorly addressed by contract or fiat. The behavioral economics revolution makes it clear that people – far from the individualistic and amoral representation in conventional economics – are capable of extraordinary levels of cooperation based on ethical values and other regarded preferences.

Bowles and Carlin don’t really explore HOW to foster new forms of collective social action, however, or what specific ones ought to be embraced. Perhaps they are not so familiar with the world of commoning and the impressive variety of “new economy” projects.

It is precisely this cohort of players who hold answers for the future. I’m talking about people who are pioneering the relocalization of food and place-based markets, new types of cooperatives, platform cooperatives in digital spaces, non-capitalist forms of finance, degrowth strategies, digital peer production, globally shared design (open source style) used to manufacture locally, agroecology and permaculture, urban commons, and countless other projects that point beyond capitalism and state bureaucracy.

A rare historical moment has opened up new possibilities. We can’t let it be wasted. We need to support an aggressive surge of institutional innovation, relationship-building and meme-spreading along with the development of new grand narratives and collaborative strategies. In a future post, I will look at some of the intriguing new institutional forms that are emerging in specific sectors.

Lead image: by Prachatai.

The post Let the Institutional Innovation Begin! (Part I) appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Stichting Bildung aims to build bridges within society—from excluded groups to wealthy ones, from low to higher educated—in  a space filled with culture, altruism, and social connection. The project is being designed and implemented by a small group of people from different countries and backgrounds that live and work together, as an act of resistance, offering an alternative to the common subsidy-based initiatives that rely on policy regulations.

The location, a derelict Catholic church renamed DeKerk, is their current setting. Several meeting and social spaces including a bar and a dedicated music area have been built – all done at the lowest cost possible thanks to using recycled materials and waste, personal savings and crowdfunding campaigns. Lights, electricity and heating were installed, alongside a stage, and a wood workshop.A shop, located at the main entrance of the building, opens two days per week and provides a good gauge of the social situation in the neighborhood, as people come in to talk and share their stories. It gives away donated items such as clothes, shoes, furniture, books, games and toys to those in need.

Today, DeKerk hosts a variety of organisations and events. As the building was set to be demolished in 2020 as part of a residential redevelopment, Stichting Bildung is now working to get more people and organisations involved to extend their activities programme and they are already looking for more places to continue its vision.

“Social centres are often the backbone on which broader urban social movements are built. The establishment of new centres is always a cause for hope.”

– Evaluator Bert Russell

Would you like to learn more about this initiative? Please contact us.

Or visit bildungamsterdam.nl/

Transformative Cities’ Atlas of Utopias is being serialized on the P2P Foundation Blog. Go to TransformativeCities.org for updates.

The post Amsterdam, Netherlands: Derelict church becomes vibrant community hub appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Socrates Schouten: Digital cities with a conscience — What does a new government mean for Amsterdam?

Was it because of the ‘fake news’ epidemic that blew over the Atlantic in 2016? The steady conquest of urban life by platform powers like Airbnb and Uber? Or did the shocking news about Facebook and Cambridge Analytica tilt the debate? We can’t be sure — but Amsterdam’s radically different tone of voice on the issue of technology is crystal clear. The coalition agreement signed by Amsterdam’s new governing parties demands a digital economy that is social, privacy-assuring and supportive of urban commons.

In March, Dutch citizens elected new city councils across the country. In Amsterdam, a progressive council was elected, with the green party GroenLinks leading negotiations. After two months of consultations, a leftist four-party coalition presented their vision and programme for the city.

Waag president Marleen Stikker’s smile widens when she scans the document for her cherished topics — digital development and civic agency. The city is learning to recognise the value of ‘city makers’, she concludes. The tech-driven ‘smart city’, on the other hand, is regarded with increasing suspicion in the new proposal. Why should large corporations like Cisco and Google be allowed to turn Amsterdam’s data into a money machine without even lending an ear to the preferences and concerns of its citizens? The new coalition programme’s approach to addressing some of these issues is a welcome turn for the better. As just one token of change, the city officially joins the band of ‘Fearless cities’ spearheaded by Barcelona that by and large seeks to obliterate neoliberalism from public office.

Let’s take a closer look at the new coalition’s programme, “A New Spring and a New Sound” (highlights here, full version here).

Firstly, the city’s digital plans begin with instating a Digital City Agenda, setting out Amsterdam’s vision on cyber security, data sovereignty, digital participation and digital services, complex topics that cannot be solved overnight. Outlining the principles of ‘privacy by design’ and ‘data minimisation’, the programme is both digitally ambitious and insightful. It warrants optimism for Amsterdam as a DECODE pilot city and as a test site for digital identity and data innovation work. Moreover, the city also expresses determination to implement the Tada manifesto, a clear-cut guide for responsible data and technology management.

Secondly, the programme sets out to define the purpose of digital technologies: these should be designed and implemented around the needs of the city, as expressed by its citizens (rather than its ‘consumers’). Thus, the coalition supports the development of platform cooperatives that provide alternatives to platform monopolists like Uber, and steps up its efforts to open up city data in ways that allow for active participation. The coalition also reworks the Amsterdam Economic Board into the “Amsterdam Social and Economic Board”, and vastly expands its digital re-schooling programme aimed at skilling the workforce for the digital (and sustainable) age. The “smart city”, the old tech-driven approach favoured by urban digital policy makers, is nowhere to be found.

On the theme of citizen participation, the programme’s proposals are equally ambitious. Of particular interest is the coalition’s promise to actively support the establishment of new commons (resources that are controlled and managed by the community, for individual and collective benefit) in the areas of ‘energy transition, healthcare, and neighbourhood activities’. (I have discussed the commons in relation to digital social innovation earlier here.) Politically, the idea of the commons has not had much traction until now, but Amsterdam’s support for establishing new commons is a sign of a shift in political discourse. The city of Amsterdam isn’t alone in this: the Belgian city of Ghent recently completed an extensive mapping of commons in 2017, and Barcelona’s minority government led by Barcelona en Comù is working with projects such as D-CENT, Procomuns, DECODE and DSI4EU.

Not coincidentally, the topics of ‘Democratisation’ and the ‘Digital City’ are merged together under one heading in the programme. If we want to prevent the smart city from becoming a digital dystopia, a diversified and intensified urban democratic practice is key. Citizens and communities need to have control of how measuring, tracking and profiling is being done and by who. By developing the democratic or participatory toolbox — including public debate, voting systems, having rights to ‘challenge’ and suggest self-managed alternatives — many digital ills can be avoided. Already the city has reached out to many Amsterdam initiatives that work on democratisation, participation and stronger neighbourhoods to start working on this agenda together. Rutger Groot-Wassink, the responsible Alderman, has also pledged to arrange budgets for communities, commons and intermediaries so that they can share in the design, implementation and execution of these practices, instead of having the administration lead on everything itself.

Of course, all of this will prove quite challenging. I expect it will take certainly a year before this new way of working will really emerge, and some years of teething problems after that. The same goes for the digital agenda itself. Whereas the coalition agreement discusses digital rights and digital participation in detail, the crossover between digital technologies and other themes is considerably less developed. The city’s vision on digitalisation in issues such as logistics, mobility, crowd management, environmental management, healthcare, and internet infrastructure is yet to be confirmed. However, for the moment we can be pleased with Amsterdam’s progress, and hopeful for the future.

This blog was originally published in June 2018 on Waag.org and updated on November 25.

Header photo: City of Amsterdam (Amsterdam.nl), public domain.

The post ‘Fearless’ Amsterdam government: digital city goes social appeared first on P2P Foundation.

These are the questions from Laura Flanders’ opening statements at the Transnational Institute’s convening on Transformative Cities in Amsterdam during July 2018.

The post Transformative Cities: Crisis and Opportunity in Amsterdam appeared first on P2P Foundation.

The program for the first half of 2019 is well underway. Because we’re eager to get started and reach out, we’re doing a pre-launch already: October 11th.

That happens to be during the World Commons Week

World Commons Week

From 4 to 12 October, people from all over the world celebrate the World Commons Week: a week dedicated to the study and practice of the commons. Exactly fifty years ago in October, biologist Garrett Hardin published his infamous Tragedy of the commons article in Science. Since then, many scholars have been very busy disproving Hardin’s pessimistic assessment of commons. Also in October, Waag’s Chamber of Commons will launch to carve out new practices, models and politics for the commons, in partnership with Commons Network, de Meent, Sustainable Finance Lab and OBA.

Chamber of Commons

The Chamber of Commons bolsters the interests of commons and commoners. Commons are shared resources managed by communities with an aim of assuring their sustainability and inclusivity. They foster bottom-up initiative and community self-determination, while keeping a close watch on the needs of the wider public. The mission of the Chamber of Commons is to raise public awareness on the commons, tickle the senses, and demonstrate new models through which the commons can address societal questions.

Politics of Nature

“Politics of Nature” is the first initiative to be invited to the Chamber of Commons to explore new ways of relating between humans and nature. Politics of Nature is a brand new initiative experimenting with democratic methodologies, game design and immersive tech, inspired by the ideas of Bruno Latour, Baruch Spinoza and the concept of the Cratic Platform. “In times of democratic and climatic decline, we will need to experiment with and practice new methods and methodologies for addressing difficult issues and respect the beings we co-exist with,” says Jakob Raffn, co-initiator of Politics of Nature.

The case – Amsterdam Rainproof

While Europe this summer has faced one of the most intense regional droughts in recent memory, for a city like Amsterdam the main problems are with excess water: downpours of rain that put the infrastructure of the city under severe pressure. The city has become more densely populated, more intensively used, and more heavily paved; at the same time, climate change brings more extreme weather.
Overall we need to develop a better relationship with water. “Politics of Nature” is a method, a game with which a stronger democratic legitimacy can be created in which not only people, but also plants, animals and buildings can raise their voices. It’s about increasing the number of affected actors in the networks and find consents for coexistence.

We hope to see you for an event dedicated to abstraction, warmth and multi-perspectives.

This edition will take place on Thursday 11th of October at  Waag, Nieuwmarkt 4, Amsterdam. Admission is € 5,-

Program:
16.00 Doors open
16.30 Welcome by Socrates Schouten (Waag, Chamber of Commons) and introduction to the case
17.00 Game round 1
18.00 Sandwich dinner
18.45  Game round 2
20.00 Plenary synthesis
20.45 Drinks

This edition of Politics of Nature will have a technological afterlife the 25th of October at the VRDAYS.

Photo by Luc Mercelis

The post Pre-launch Chamber of Commons, Amsterdam, 11 October appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Here’s how one organization is working on the problem: In 2009, Martine Postma organized the very first Repair Café in Amsterdam, Netherlands, to do something good for the environment and build social contacts within local communities. The Repair Café connected people who were skilled in fixing things with community members who needed items to be fixed once a month at a convenient neighborhood location. The repair experts shared their knowledge with the community members, who learned that repair is possible, and often not that difficult, with a little bit of community support. People got to experience firsthand the value of repairing things instead of buying new stuff to replace them.

Results:

• “There are now over 1,000 Repair Café groups operating in 25 countries around the world,” says Postma, founder of the Repair Café Foundation. “On average, groups meet once a month at which around 25 repairs are made with a 70 percent success rate. Eighteen thousand products are repaired each month under the Repair Café International umbrella, which equates to over 200,000 products per year. If one product weighs 1 kg [or 2.2 pounds], then Repair Café groups prevent 200,000 kgs [over 440,000 pounds/220 tons] of CO2 from being emitted each year.”
• At first, the Repair Café Foundation’s starter kit, which gives a blueprint on starting a repair café, was entirely free; but to keep the organization sustainable, the foundation needed to raise some income. The Starter Kit is now supplied via a webshop where it can be bought for a voluntary donation. Making this shift was a challenge for the foundation, but most people have been willing to pay a small sum for the kit. Organizations that promote volunteer activities need to maintain ongoing sources of revenue and the Starter Kit is a good way to cover some of the costs.
• The Repair Café Foundation has also developed close partnerships with organizations and companies that provide benefits like product discounts to local organizers and give yearly financial donations to the organization.

Learn more from:

• Repair Café Foundation

This case study is adapted from our latest book, “Sharing Cities: Activating the Urban Commons.” Get a copy today.

Photo by Darwin Bell

The post The Repair Café Foundation builds community by fixing things appeared first on P2P Foundation.

The concept in construction

Commons is a concept in construction broadly defined as tangible and intangible resources shared by a group of individuals shaping patterns of access, use and reproduction. This analytical concept emerged as an alternative to the fixed public-private divide that masks other forms of appropriation and governance models. It has evolved from a narrow contextual focus on social dilemmas in social-ecological systems into an integrative analytical perspective to address social change at large.
The incorporation of cultural and political resources allows for an analysis of social processes not only around traditional ‘commons’ (natural resources such as water, forest, fish, land, ocean, air) but also relating to the what are known as new commons (e.g., knowledge, memories, identities, urban public spaces, digital spaces, collective practices). The commons perspective has become a vibrant interdisciplinary field to articulate theoretical questions usually polarized by domains that may be geographic (e.g., rural and urban commons), scalar (e.g., local to global commons), institutional (e.g., formal and informal commons) and tangible (e.g., material and immaterial commons).

Click here for our position paper.

About this Co-Lab

This co-lab aims at unpacking plural perspectives of the commons in Latin America and exploring ways to create a dialogue across different fields. Students from different disciplines, practitioners, activists and policy makers will debate on the commons in the region. There will be plenty of room for discussion and knowledge exchange.

Call for papers

We invite activists, practitioners and policy makers to participate in this conference. Please send us your affiliation, a brief summary of your work experience and why you are interested in the commons to the email address below before November 30, 2017

Keynote speaker John Powell

President of the International Association for the Study of Commons / University of Gloucestershire, UK

Governance of Commons: The Rhetoric and Reality 

Commons and ‘rights’ of common have always been contested, but in the years following publication of Hardin’s paper on the ‘tragedy’ of the commons the notion that some form of sharing of resources was not only possible but desirable, both socially and economically, came under sustained attack. Ostrom’s work over several decades has demonstrated the fallacy of some of the neo-liberal arguments, and created the space to explore alternatives to the privatisation-statist approaches to resource governance. More recent developments have seen the rise of ‘new’ commons as the concept is applied to a wider range of resources, and of ‘commoning’, the result of new ways of thinking about the nature of the social processes that generate shared services and resources. In many situations the reality of governing commons and commoning is often different from the idealism and conceptual frameworks that drive activities in this arena. Separating the reality from the rhetoric is an important function for an international organisation involved in analysing the concept of commons, and an area where the Latin American experience has a lot to offer.

This presentation will explore the wider context of commons governance, with the aim of opening the doors between regions to enable the cross-fertilisation of ideas, and to encourage wider learning from the struggles, scholarship, research, and practice currently happening across Latin America.

Contact

Pictures from Creative Commons
:: De todos los Colores ::, Desde cúpula del Palacio Nacional. Centro de Medellín. Colombia (CC BY 2.0)
Remi. Santo Tomas Chichicastenango, Quiche, Guatemala (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Remi. Cocora, Colombia (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Fotos.rotas. San Nicolas, Buenos Aires, Ciudad de Buenos Aires (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
Ted’s photos – For Me & You. Las Palmitas. Colonial, Pachuca, Hidalgo. Mexico (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Speculum Mundi. Huancayo, Perú (CC BY 2.0)
Inmigrante a media jornada. Phunchäwi (Carnaval Popular). Estrecho de Tiquina, Lago Titicaca, Bolivia (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

The post The Commons in Latin America: Struggles, Policies and Research appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Image: Advertisement for the municipal electricity utility in Hamburg (round 1900)

In Germany, there is a strong movement to claim the gas, electricity and heating networks back from private corporations. Initiated by civil organisations, they are pushing the political arena to take action towards a remunicipalisation of the energy system. After setting the theoretical background (in part 1), we will look into two cases: Hamburg and Berlin. These examples provide crucial insights into the interplay between civil initiatives and the political arena and allow to draw important conclusions. 

A municipal utility in Hamburg: good try, no cigar

As we saw in the first part, the referendum in Hamburg pushed the municipality to buy the electricity, gas and heating networks back from Vattenfall. Therefore, things seem to be on the right tracks there. However, a more careful observation shows that the model is missing a crucial part: the democratic governance.

In order to understand where the step was missed, we have to go back in time. During the phase preceding the referendum, several local actors created an energy cooperative, which aim was to apply to the concession for operating the electricity grid. It’s name is Energienetz Hamburg. They made a deal with a Dutch TSO, Alliander, which pulled out at the last moment.

Unfortunately, although Energienetz succeeded to attract a large number of members who commited to a common capital of 50 million euros, the municipality did not include them in the deal for the concession.

This is a missed opportunity, which could have seen a new type of civil-public partnership and the implementation in a state-run company of the cooperative decision-making model: one member (one user) = one vote.

On the brighter side, this energy coop. is now playing an important role in Hamburg, by organizing debates (called Wärmedialogue) to promote and push the municipality to investigate alternative sources of district heating. One solution for instance would be to recuperate the heat from a copper furnace on the South East side of the city instead of using fossil-fuel power plants. As mentioned in this video (to watch absolutely if you have 12 minutes to spare!), district heating is crucial because this represent a large number of homes (>450 000), which generally do not have other choices (e.g., renters who de facto have district heating). Therefore, prices and heating sources become central issues.

In Hamburg, an advisory board was created and adjunct to the Energy Agency of the city. As explained in this article: “Members of this new Board include a broad range of 20 representatives from society, science, business, industry and most importantly all local grid companies, also including Vattenfall and E.ON, which still remain main shareholders of the district heating and gas distribution grid until the purchase options has been exercised.” However, the board exert a mere advisory function and has limited decision-making power. As the article states, this is one of the main challenge that Hamburg faces: “avoid [that] the board becom[es] a toothless tiger”.

Twists and turns in Berlin

In Berlin, the story started in a similar fashion as in Hamburg but developed very differently. A dynamic campaign to remunicipalise the networks was launched in 2013, orchestrated by the civic initiative Berliner Energietisch. The referendum attracted more than 600 000 people but unfortunately, failed short of 20 000 “Ja” votes.

The actors are pretty much the same as in Hamburg:

• private utilities (e.g., Stromnetz Berlin, belonging to Vattenfall) are running the show at the moment,
• a municipal energy provider, Berliner Stadtwerke, daughter of the water utility and a minicipal grid operator Berlin Energie were created as a result of the campaign in order to apply for the concession to operate the grids. Berlin Energie is investigating interesting concepts, like the combined networks (link in German).
• an energy cooperative, Bürgerenergie Berlin, alive and kicking, aims at buying back and operating the grids.

Interestingly, everyone though that the game was over after the failed referendum but this was forgetting the importance of the political game. Indeed, the municipal vote in 2016 saw the formation of a new “Red-Red-Green” (SPD-Die Linke-Die Grüne) coalition in Berlin, which put back the remunicipalisation process on the agenda.

And here are the different options that are being evaluated presently by the municipality. We find applicants like in Hamburg: In white, the fully municipal operators (Berlin Energie) and in grey, the fully privatised actors (NBB Netzgesellschaft and Stromnetz Berlin). But we also find more funky applications: in white-grey hashed, either classical public-private partnership for the gas networks or more a complex civil-public-private partnership for the electricity grid. A new field of possible has been open. We are all very curious what will happen now!

This is interesting as it points out the joint role of the civil society and of the political arena in creating new spaces. It starts by a strong civic movement and is enabled by a favorable political landscape.

To finish, here a second little video that we did with TNI at the occasion of the conference “Against the NAM”. I had to answer the question “Why should we treat energy as a commons?”.

The post Remunicipalisation of energy systems – Part 2 appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Image: Advertisement for the municipal electricity utility in Hamburg (round 1900)

In Germany, there is a strong movement to claim the gas, electricity and heating networks back from private corporations. Initiated by civil organisations, they are pushing the political arena to take action towards a remunicipalisation of the energy system. This is a very interesting process, which allows to explore key concepts such as the right to energy and democratic governance as well as the interplay between politics and the civil society.

I presented this story during a conference on about the potential remunicipalisation of the Groningen gas field at the beginning of January (see previous article). You will find here all the slides from the presentation, which you can download and reuse (but please, cite me!). All sources are indicated at the end of the post.

Energy is a commons

Firstly, I will quickly lay some theoretical foundations to the relationships between energy and the commons. The following slide is an illustration of the differences between energy used as a commodity or a common good.

• Energy is a commodity: it is produced to make profit (even green): we are clients/consumers and our decision power is to chose between different companies. The incentive in this case is to produce as much energy as possible (or raise the prices) to increase the profits. The prices are set either by the producer (the owner of the power plant) or by the market.
• Energy is a commons: it is produced to respond to a need and we are producers and consumers at the same time, this is called “prosumers”. We can decide together with our neighbours on the system we want to have. The incentive is to produce what is needed and save it. Being a commons does not mean that energy becomes free of charge but that the prices can be adapted to our needs (we control it and use it to foster social and climatic justice). Think of water, which is also a common good: it still has a cost for the consumer. But you don’t make profit out of it because it is considered as a human right. We should look at energy in that way.

Cooperatives and municipal utilities to foster energy democracy

When we think energy democracy, one thing that comes to mind are cooperatives. There are many throughout Europe, which can have very different financial structures and sizes. But they have one thing in common, which makes them very particular: their ownership and governance modes.

The infrastructure is owned by the members, who each have a vote. Decisions are taken on the model “one member, one vote”.

The other form of organisation that holds great potential for energy democracy are municipal utilities. They are known in Europe for the water utilities and used to play a large role for energy as well. But the wave of privatisations in the 1990s put them in the hands of private corporations. Since a few years, some cities are taking a reverse path and buy their networks and utilities back. This is very interesting because municipal utilities, which inherently belong to all, have potentially one crucial advantage over cooperatives: as all inhabitants/users can be considered as members, they might prove more inclusive structures. However, this is only true if the governance mode is copied on the coop one: “one member one vote”. We will see that it is not necessarily the case.

Hamburg in the driver seat

First, here are a few basics on the structure of the energy system in Germany:

• On the one hand, there are the grid operators (TSO): they own and operate the local electricity, gas and heating networks. They get concessions of 20 years, given by the federal states: these are quasi-monopolies. They compete to get the concession but once the get it, they have no competitors.

• On the other hand, there are the energy providers, who operate the power plants and commercialise energy (they are the users of the grid). Here it can be anyone producing energy, from the very big to the very small.

In Hamburg, the concession for the networks was hold by Vattenfall and ran out in 2013. People then decided to regain control on the grid. So the city of Hamburg grounded a municipal utility (called “Hamburg Energie”), as a daughter of the water utility. It is now an energy provider, which focuses on producing and selling local green energy (mostly electricity but also some gas).

Next to that, a collective of citizens founded the initiative “Unser Hamburg Unser Netz”. They ran a campaign and had a referendum, during which people voted in favour of a full remunicipalisation of the networks. Therefore, the electricity network was bought back in 2014 and the gas and heating networks should get back in the public hand by 2018/2019.

So things seem to be on a right track in Hamburg, and it was indeed experienced as a tremendous victory for the supporters of energy democracy. But… something is missing in the Hamburg model: the citizen participation, based on the cooperative model. Indeed, both the municipal energy utility and municipal TSO are run as companies and users are not taking an active part in decision-making (they are merely consulted).

That’s it for now. Next time, we’ll have a look at energy cooperatives in Hamburg and at the story in Berlin. Stay tuned!

In the meantime, you can watch the whole presentation, that was recorded by TNI (whom I thank very much!).

Photo by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory – PNNL

The post Remunicipalisation of energy systems – Part 1 appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Community energy refers to any kind of power plant using a renewable source of energy, that has been planned, financed and which is owned by a community of people (from the village to the house). And why would these energy communities matter? It is nice enough but sounds pretty irrelevant when we think about fighting climate change or fostering democracy… However, several recent studies highlight the crucial role of energy democracy in meeting these societal challenges.

Hereafter, I will distinguish energy communities (as defined earlier) from external projects, which involve private or institutional investors and a project developer who do not belong to the community where the power-plant is installed. If informed and sometimes a minor share-holder, the community generally does not take part in the design and the decision-making.

Some benefits of community energy can (and sometimes have been) quantified:

• Reinvestment in local economy. A much larger part of the initial investment and profits derived from energy communities flows back to the local economy as compared to external projects (up to eight times larger, see article & original study -in German).
• Lower electricity prices are to be expected as energy communities expect lower return-rates than external projects. This is crucial to help fighting energy poverty.

Out of a visit I made in the energy self-sufficient village Feldheim (I’ll relate that in a future episode!), I also got these two indications (which to my knowledge have not been quantified yet):

• Stable real-estate value. Due to the positive image of energy communities compared to villages where a renewable power-plant was installed by external actors, the value of the real-estate is largely sustained or improved.
• There is creation of local and resilient jobs and reinvigoration of rural regions. Feldheim is a typical example of how such a project helps to fight structural unemployment and to attract new inhabitants (e.g., the school has reopen its doors after being closed for decades).

Other benefits are more difficult to quantify but are nonetheless tangible. A series of interviews from local stake-holders involved in community energy projects reported the following (see article & study in German):

• It increases the connectivity between the community members (“making friends”, “doing together”).
• Involvement. The possibility to participate in the decision-making at all levels provides a strong incentive to be involved in the community and thereby fosters democracy.
• Interestingly, it raises the level of self-worth for local actors, who are able to acquire new skills, and/or achieve challenges (for instance get involved and better understand local politics).

Finally, there is a range of strategical benefits:

• Power generation in public hands. Power plants being by nature highly strategic infrastructure, it seems rather reassuring that they remain in the public hands rather than under private control.
• Stabilize grid and fight black-outs. It might seem counter-intuitive, but a research project from the German Fraunhofer Institute shows that the decentralized production of energy might help to stabilize the grid. As shown by this video (in German), small decentralized production units are actually a better solution against black-outs than big centralised power-plants.
• Favouring the installation of the “appropriate technology*” coupled to the implementation of energy-saving or energy-efficient measures. The interest of an energy community lies more into finding an adequate, robust and resilient solution to produce clean energy rather than maximising profits.
• Fuel the energy transition. Community energy projects raise the awareness and acceptance towards the energy transition, and therefore help to fight climate change and environmental damages.

Glossary
*Renewable energy: energy produced from sources that will be renewed/replenished in a short amount of time. Typically, even if you use the wind, the sun-rays, the tides, the waves, the flow of a river, and in some cases biomass to make energy (warmth or electricity) today, that has no impact on their amount tomorrow. That does not mean that they are infinite (there is a finite amount of wind), but it means that their quantity won’t be depleted permanently if you use them. It is therefore clear that oil, coal and uranium (to make nuclear power) are finite and not renewable (or at least not on short time-scales): if you use them today, there will be less tomorrow.
*Appropriate technology: it describes the technology best adapted to the local conditions and needs of the community members. It is used in opposition to the race for “high technology” (or high-tech), which, although being technologically sound, is not always the best suited solution. High-tech also does not necessarily feeds the interests of the community, of the “common good” but rather that of external investors.

Originally published on Energy Commons

Lead image: Hepburn Wind, Flickr

The post Why does community energy matter? appeared first on P2P Foundation.