The following articles are sourced from the ICAA Registry and Yes to Life, no to Mining. Froxán’s community is also elegible for a prize from the European Outdoor Conservation Association that would help them take their re-foresting work up a notch. Please consider voting for them through this link. The deadline for voting in March 23rd.

The Froxán Common Woodlands, Spain

The Froxán Common Woodlands are a community land of 100 hectares that has been recognized since 1977 as a ‘monte veciñal en man común‘ (‘common hand community land’). This is a consuetudinary land ownership status, recognized in Galician and Spanish law. Its manorial origin can be traced back to 1409 and its charters were issued in 1527 and 1709, defining the boundaries of community lands and the manorial obligations.

The peasants of Froxán collectively extinguished the manorial ties in 1928, buying off the lands for the sum of 6.049 pesetas. However, this ‘manorial redemption’ agreement was not respected by the state, which took hold of the common lands, incorporating them into the Public Woodlands Catalogue. This severely restricted traditional rights of use, and in particular communal pastoralism. Lands were handed over to mining companies, which held concessions over the community territory, and to the State Forestry Service, which established its own plantations. Mining activities produced severe environmental degradation and land disputes that continue today. Invasive forest species, including Acacia and Eucalyptus, were introduced during the same period.

Across Galicia, social pressure against forced reforestation programmes led to the legal recognition in 1968 of ‘common hand’ community lands. On April 14 1975, seven months before the death of the Dictator Franco, the entire Froxán community signed a petition to the Civil Governor demanding the devolution of common lands. This occurred in defiance of the Municipality, which legally held the property at the time. In 1977, the Froxán Common Woodlands were formally recognized, and the community gained legal status soon after. Direct assembly governance was established, with one representative of each house making up the collective body. Commoner status is not dependent on property ownership or inheritance, but on effective residency and participation in the village community and collective decision-making. In 2002, the last remaining ties with the Public Administration were broken, finalizing the Forestry Contract that had been inherited from the dictatorship period, and gaining full self-governance of the community lands.

Faced with degradation from mining, the community commenced restoration efforts in the 1990s, and these continue to the present day. Initially, the restoration efforts included filling abandoned pits and shafts. More recently, efforts have been initiated to eradicate exotic invasive species (particularly Acacia decurrens, Acacia dealbata and Robinia pseudoacacia) that are aggressively expansive and pyrophytes. Eucalyptus plantations are also being removed, as the last productive cycle gives way to restoration with high-ecological-value native species.

In spite of the influence of invasive species, the community’s territory includes several priority natural habitats under the EU Habitats Directive, such as Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (91E0*), Temperate Atlantic wet heaths with Erica ciliaris and Erica tetralix (4020*), Arborescent matorral with Laurus nobilis (5230*) and other natural habitats such as Galicio-Portuguese oak woods with Quercus robur and Quercus pyrenaica (9230), Forest vegetation with Castanea sativa (9260) and Caves not open to the public (8310). Several endangered species (such as Dyopteris guanchica) have been identified in a participatory inventory (see related links), and the area has been included as a Special Scenic Interest Site (LEIP) in the Galician Landscape Catalogue.

Continuing traditional resource uses include gathering firewood, which is used for heating and cooking, and is sporadically sold on a commercial basis generating revenue for the Community; spring water is utilized for household use and irrigation, and also collected in open deposits for wildfire suppression; gorse (Ulex europaeus) is gathered as ‘molime‘ to strawbed (‘estrar’) animal housing and generate manure (‘esterco‘) for fields and food gardens; chestnuts (from Castanea sativa) are gathered are roasted during their season and also preserved; wild mushrooms are gathered and preserved (the common land has been designated as a wild mycological production area); certain aromatic and medicinal plants are used for cultural practices, including Midsummer Solstice (St. John’s eve) or Mayday (‘Maios‘). Two wind turbines have also been installed in the common lands under a 30 year lease agreement, but the community is unable to self-manage energy production under current regulations.

In addition to natural heritage, the common lands hold significant cultural heritage that evidences a long history of communal management. This includes a large stone enclosure that has been dated to the Early Middle Ages, which would hold the community’s herds in the higher part of the mountain. Another feature is a traditional water mill that was documented in a 1563 notarial deed. Oral memory testifies to the existence of a megalithic burial mound called ‘Casa Vella’ (‘Old House’) that would have been destroyed by mining in the mid-20th century, and similar megalithic sites are present in the area. An ancient pathway, which has been identified as a possible secondary route of the Roman Via XX ‘Per loca maritima‘, also goes through the common Castanea sativa forest, preserved by the modern road that replaced it.

In recent years, the Community has been active in engaging the wider society in its conservation and restoration efforts, particularly working with children, schools, families and environmental organizations. These groups have assisted in reclaiming degraded areas affected by mining activity and invasive species, through participatory reforestation with native species. Through these activities, the community seeks to develop an ongoing programme for education and sustainability, showcasing the potential of community land-management in addressing pressing environmental and social issues. These issues include climate change, wildfires, invasive species, land and water contamination and degradation, alternatives to rural depopulation, and cultural continuity among traditional peasant communities in Galicia. These efforts were recognized in 2017 with the inclusion of Froxán in the ICCA Registry, being the first Community Area in Spain (and the third in Europe), together with Santiago de Covelo, to participate in the Registry.

Take action:10,000 native tress for Froxán

Today the European Outdoor Conservation Association opened the voting to select a winner from 14 environmental conservation projects, selected as finalists from over 150. The winner will receive major new support for their project.

The Froxán Commons Community (YLNM member and registered Indigenous and Community Conserved Area, ICCA, in Galiza, Spain) is one of this year’s finalists. The community has been nominated for its project seeking to plant 10.000 native trees in 20 hectares of land that has been partially degraded in the past century by mining operations and is currently threatened by new mining concessions.

Voting only takes 2 seconds- support Froxán!

YLNM’s regional coordinators visited Froxán in 2017, learning how the local community and their common lands are threatened by Spanish miner Sacyr’s plans to re-open a tungsten mine. In response, the people of Froxán are filling in old mine workings, restoring their lands and reclaiming the area’s past, present and future for sustainable, commons-based living, not mining.

The people of Froxán’s project- 10,000 native trees for Froxán Community, Spain– would help take this work to the next level, building yet another example of prosperity without mining.

The deadline for voting in March 23rd.

Take action now to support Froxán!

The post Froxán Commons: help defend one of Europe’s first legaly recognized Commons communities appeared first on P2P Foundation.

The Assembly of the Commons of Grenoble: building the city together

It was with great pleasure that I met Anne-Sophie and Antoine during my journey, while taking a break in the beautiful city of Grenoble. We happily shared the practices of the Lille and Grenoble assemblies of the commons over a coffee at a sidewalk cafe.

Anne-Sophie and Antoine were both elected to positions in city hall. They shared stories with me of citizens engaged in a dynamic of counterpower and, after being elected in 2014, of their difficulty in taking on an institutional posture. Changing culture is not always easy! But this is what also makes the Grenoble Assembly of the Commons so special, born of the meeting of two dynamics.

The first of these two comes from Nuit Debout, within which a “Commission of the Commons” was created in 2016. The idea was to discuss the management of commons as a common responsibility: not only the responsibility of public authorities, but also of the area’s inhabitants.

The second dynamic, on the part of city hall, was the philosophically interesting idea of investing in a space between the private and the public, to make room for citizens in the public debate. The key here is that this idea has not been abandoned at all, in fact it unites activists and elected representatives in the same assembly today.

Last March, during the Biennale of Cities in Transition, partners and associations were invited to the assembly. About fifty people from various backgrounds participated in this first assembly, including Sylvia Fredricksson and Michel Briand, both well-known French commoners who came to share their experiences.

What the elected representatives underline is that even if they have the will to make a difference in the direction of greater citizen involvement in public life, it is not so simple. Legislation is not adapted at all, particularly with regard to risk management (the insurance framework does not exist). On top of that, officials are not so aware, and not trained to work directly with citizens. Faced with this, the elected representatives asked the services to work on these points and advance the texts and practices.

Nevertheless, among the completed projects at the town hall level, there have been agreements created for occupying public spaces such as shared gardens, for example. The assembly also discussed the idea of writing a charter on housing, a bit like in Bologna (Italy), where a charter of urban commons was drafted and signed by some forty Italian cities.

The city also participates in a “migrants’ platform” to accompany reception initiatives.There are also participatory budgets: every year, 800K€ in investment is opened to citizens’ projects. 106 projects proposed by the Grenoble region were selected in 2017. On the cultural side, we can cite the desire to take art out of museums with the Street Art Festival, whose traces can be found all over the city walls.

To date, the Assembly of the Commons has set up four separate working groups which meet asynchronously at regular intervals:

• Natural Commons
• Knowledge Commons
• Urban Commons
• Commons of Health and Well-being

The spirit of commons in Grenoble has a long history. After the Second World War, unlike many other places, the city had, for quite a while, retained its own operators to manage electricity and water, which made it a very special case.

After being privatized in the 1980s, water came back into the public domain after a citizens’ lengthy legal battle with certain elected environmental officials and some employees of the water authority. This was the first battle won in France for water municipalization, along with the first French users’ committee to make the citizens’ involvement in water management last. The whole world visits Grenoble for its water management model. And on the electricity and gas side, the operator is a mixed-economy company but the public (the city of Grenoble) is still the majority shareholder.

This civic expertise and spirit of solidarity continue today, and are embodied in the city’s desire to be part of a concrete, lasting relationship between two communities that “do with others”, all the others…

The post Summer of Commoning 3: The Assembly of the Commons of Grenoble appeared first on P2P Foundation.

How relocating energy in the commons helps scaling-up renewables & saving energy

Is energy a mere commodity, or is it a common good? Why is this relevant in the first place? Here we look at why energy is part of our commons, from the sources to the product itself. In a second time, we will see that relocating energy in the commons has very important implications: it helps solve the energy efficiency dilemma (i.e., we need to reduce our energy consumption but who’s going to pay for that?) and scale-up renewables.

What is a commons?

Once upon a time… there was an alpine pasture, where cattle from the village came to graze. The air was fresh and brisk, there was enough grass for the animals. But it was also a delicate, sensitive environment: put too much pressure on it (too much cattle) and it would be ruined in no-time… In other words, the pasture was a finite resource, which could support a finite number of cattle.

A (finite) natural resource, that is necessary to all: that’s a natural commons.

There are three way of dealing with natural commons:

1. The commons (e.g., the pasture) is claimed by someone, who controls its access and monetize it: it becomes a commodity and the usage profits mainly to a few.
2. There is no communication in the community and no rules are set to use the commons. Individuals tend to exploit the commons as much as possible in order to maximise their own profit and compete for accessing to it. Eventually, the commons is destroyed. This is how Garrett Hardin described modern humans’ behaviour in the “Tragedy of the Commons” in 1968, which led him to argue that only privatization (as in 1.) or state regulation are successful mode of governance for the commons.
3. People actually talk to each other and are conscious of the problem of over-using their commons. Therefore, communities organise themselves and set some rules, compensation mechanisms and sanctions against free-riders. Benefits are shared and sustained. This is what Elinor Ostrom (and her colleagues) reported upon throughout her career: communities are able to (and do) manage their common goods by themselves.

Next to the finite or physical resources defining the classical commons framework, we can think of other non-finite and more abstract resources that can be treated as commons and referred to as social commons: digital commons, knowledge commons, health commons, urban commons… Shifting the paradigm from commodity to commons helps to reduce the (artificial) scarcity of these resources (created and sustained by privatisation and monetisation) by having a common-ownership or no-ownership. This is best illustrated by the creative common licences, which allow (for some of them) companies to sell a product but not to claim its ownership (which means that other companies can sell the same product, modify it, etc…).

And finally, there’s the act of commoning: doing together, sharing, benefiting from each other. As we saw in the previous episode, this is one of the recurrent arguments given by members of energy cooperatives as a ground and as a co-benefit from their project.

Renewable energy is a common good

SCAD Museum of Arts, Work by Nari Ward (“We the people”) Photo by JR P CC-BY-NC2.0

Here we will focus on renewable energy (RE) but this discussion also applies to fossil fuels. According to the definitions above, RE is a commons and we demonstrate this using three different viewpoints:

• the source (wind, sun…),
• the product (energy and more specifically electricity), and
• the energy transition process (i.e., the switch towards clean renewables).

The source. The renewable sources of energy (especially wind, sun, water and in a lesser extend biomass) are clearly part of our natural commons: no-one can claim their ownership and they belong to all. Furthermore, and this is particularly important, they are finite resources. It is therefore crucial to make sure that the access to these resources is equally shared throughout the society.

The product. Electricity and energy in a broader sense are part of the social commons. Indeed, accessing to energy being necessary in modern societies, it becomes a common good. And due to finite sources, the amount of energy available is also finite.
It is crucial to avoid the appropriation of this common good by individuals or single actors (i.e., free-riders) in order to prevent the creation of an artificial scarcity and efficiently fight energy poverty. If this does not sound too serious in the western word, it is a huge issue in poorer countries and has been placed in the United Nation agenda for 2030 as the sustainable development goal number 7.

Energy transition. By looking at the process of switching from fossil fuels to renewable sources, we enter into the field of “climate change mitigation”. Decarbonising the energy sector falls into the global commons: every gramme of CO2 released in the atmosphere will have an effect on all of us. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stresses the threat posed by free-riders to our mitigation efforts (summary for policy makers, AR5): “Effective mitigation will not be achieved if individual agents advance their own interests independently.”
As one can read on the website of the Mercator research Institute on Global Commons (MCC), energy is also part of the social commons: “These are public goods providing access to health services, education, clean water, sanitation, energy, or transport and communication infrastructure. They are essential for human well-being as the level of provision of these goods has significant effects on both growth and inequality.” The MCC describes the dilemma of the energy transition as an overuse of the global commons and an under-provision of the social commons.

The energy transition is a huge task for our generation and it creates both challenges and opportunities. On the winners’ side, a new market is being created, which is already profitable enough to attract institutional investors. Large investment in renewables from private sources is potentially a good news, as it speeds up the energy transition. However, there are serious drawbacks in the commodification of energy. First, the returns on investment will remain in private hands, which is a loss of revenue for society and increases the concentration of capital into the hands of a few. Second, as these investments are profit-driven, the primary goal is to install the technology providing the highest income, regardless of people’s needs and desires (so not necessarily the appropriate technology).
To summarize, here is how the EU Horizon 2020 research project REScoop presents the social relevance of framing RE sources in the commons (policy recommendation):
“Wind, solar, hydro, biomass and geothermal energy are natural resources. They in fact belong to no one and are in principle available to all. They are common goods. From the perspective of social justice, more attention therefore must be paid to the way in which decentralised renewable energy sources are managed. In a world where energy is scarce, these sources of energy will mean income for the operators. Citizens and users therefore have every interest in keeping this local energy production in their own hands as much as possible. Governments too have every interest in anchoring decentralised renewable energy with the users as much as possible so that the added value of the production also benefits society. This is especially true for wind energy, an energy source that extends over a larger area, but ultimately is exploited on a small site. The benefit of this exploitation should extend to the widest possible group of people. Thus, the exploitation of wind energy should not simply be privatised, but also allocated on the basis of socio-economic criteria.”

Reducing energy consumption

The people’s windmill – outside European Parliament, Brussels More than a 150 people formed the shape of a giant wind turbine in front of the European Parliament in Brussels to call for more support for community renewable energy projects. Photo by Friends of the Earth CC-BY-NC 2.0

One aspect of commodifying energy that is often overlooked, is that in order to increase the profits, utilities have an inherent incentive to produce and sell as much energy as possible. This is totally counteracting all efforts made to increase energy efficiency and conservation.
As recognized by several experts, reducing our greenhouse gas emissions (by increasing our efficient use of energy) is a key pillar of the energy transition. However, efficiency measures are often presented as a burden, which is costly and does not generate enough profits.
As stated by John Byrne and his team at University of Delaware, effectively “relocating energy in the commons” (I stole this expression from this remarkable and very accessible paper) has the double advantage to stimulate the installation of renewable power plants and save energy simultaneously, whereas energy as a commodity leads to a state of “energy obesity”. This “commonification” of energy is presented through the Sustainable Energy Utilities (SEU), which are community-based institutions aiming at designing and financing local energy projects. The idea is to consider the energy consumption of a community globally, with the primary aim being to save it: when energy is needed, SEU should implement an appropriate renewable technology, and incorporate heat and transport systems in the design.

Originally posted on energycommonsblog

Lead image: Energy cooperative from the US, Touchstone Energy.  Photo by David Ingram CC-BY-NC2.0

The post Is renewable energy a commons? appeared first on P2P Foundation.