The initiative started when a small group of members of Attac Berlin discovered that the Berlin Government had sold 24.9% of the shares to RWE and Veolia (each). The group organised a big event in a circus in Berlin to inform people, at the end of which an invitation was extended to those interested in founding an assembly of Berliner Wassertisch (Berlin Water Table). While many attendees were members of trade unions, political parties and other groups, as part of the assembly each person represented only themselves (a principle that remains to this day).

The five-year struggle (2006-2011) for the referendum was necessary because without it, the contract would have remained secret, denying campaigners the grounds to go to court. While no political party or media supported the fight, Berlin citizens were so outraged about the secrecy of the contract they voted in favour of the referendum.

To get the referendum granted in the first place, 25,000 signatures were needed, but the group got more than 36,000. Then the Berlin Government forbade the group to publish the secret contract on grounds that it would be against the German constitution, forcing them to go to the Berlin Constitutional Court, which ruled in their favour. And when the referendum was held, 98% of the more than 660,000 turnout voted for publishing the contract.

The pressure was so great that the Berlin Government bought back RWE’s shares in 2012 and those of Veolia in 2013. Thanks to the referendum, Berlin Water was remunicipalized in 2014.

Photo credit: Uwe Hiksch/Flickr

“The story here shows that a small committed citizens group can bring about a major change (remunicipalising water services in Berlin through  direct democracy). The fact that the referendum to disclose the private contract was not supported by political parties, unions, big NGOs, media and was a result of voluntary and unpaid efforts looks almost miraculous”

– Evaluator Satoko Kishimoto

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

Or visit berliner-wassertisch.net

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

The post Berlin, Germany: Berliners defy government and win water remunicipalisation appeared first on P2P Foundation.

For decades, citizens in the Spanish city of Valladolid had endured poorly run and expensive water provision. But in 2015, municipal elections ushered in a new three-party coalition government – and though each of the three had differing platforms, all included the remunicipalization of public water management in their electoral programme. As the contract (held by private company Aguas de Valladolid) was about to expire, water management emerged as a key political topic for the first time in 20 years.

Valladolid Toma La Palabra (VTLP), the municipalist movement running the environment department of the new City Council, held lectures and open debates, and, once the decision to remunicipalize through a public enterprise was reached, the 100% Public Water Management Platform (PWMP) was set up. Its member organizations were ecologists, neighbourhood associations and others.

Despite lobbying by the private sector, and laws restricting local government from ‘indebting’ itself by investing in water infrastructure, a new public company was set up and is now successfully managing the water supply in Valladolid. The management has been democratized through the composition of the board, new investment will start soon, and charges to customers remain frozen. The new public company will apply low tariffs according to income levels, resulting in a higher number of beneficiaries.

Other big Spanish cities such as A Coruña, Santiago de Compostela, Vitoria, Sevilla, Zaragoza, Madrid and Barcelona have requested information about the Valladolid case in order to start their own processes.

“ This reflects a well-focused and politically engaged approach. The initiative saw collective action concentrate on water ownership and access in cooperation with political parties to identify and seize a ‘window of opportunity’ politically.”

– Evaluator David Sogge

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

Or visit  valladolidtomalapalabra.org/

The post Valladolid, Spain: Residents regain public control of water appeared first on P2P Foundation.

This post is part of our series of articles on the Urban Commons sourced from the Green European Journal Editorial Board. These were published as part of Volume 16 “Talk of the Town: Exploring the City in Europe”. In this instalment, Olivier Petitjean, French journalist with experience in the NGO sector, discusses remuniciplisation in Europe.

For some years, the prevailing narrative in Europe, from pretty much all sides of the political spectrum, has been one of ‘crisis’ – an economic crisis, a democratic crisis, the climate crisis, and of course a so-called ‘refugee crisis’. The problem with this crisis narrative – no matter how much basis it may have in facts – is that it is often used to undermine a sense of our collective capacity and willingness to address common issues, including (but not exclusively) through public institutions. In that sense, it goes hand in hand with the impression of an inevitable decline of the role of government (at all levels) and of the public sphere in general.

We need counter-narratives and fortunately, there are some at hand. One of these is remunicipalisation: the story of cities and citizens reversing privatisation, and successfully developing better and more democratic public services for everyone, while addressing wider challenges such as climate change. In a way, the push for privatisation and for the continued decline of the role of the public sector (and all other forms of non-profit service provision) has perhaps never been stronger than it is today in Europe and the global level, as evidenced by the privatisation agenda of Donald Trump in the United States or Michel Temer in Brazil. Yet it is all the more significant – and heartening – to see so many people in large and small cities – elected officials, civil servants, public services employees, and citizens – willing to redress the failures of privatised services and, by doing so, invent the public services of the future.

Remunicipalisation surge across Europe

This is the story that a recent book, Reclaiming Public Services: How Cities and Citizens Are Turning Back Privatisation, seeks to highlight. While it documents dozens of cases of remunicipalisation across continents and across sectors, Western Europe clearly stands out, both in purely quantitative terms and in terms of the significance and ambition of the cases. There are well-known examples, such as the German Energiewende, which has seen dozens of local grids taken back into public hands, and dozens of new public- or citizen-owned renewable energy providers created. In France, water remunicipalisation has been in the news for some years, and there are also significant trends towards remunicipalisation in sectors such as public transport or school restaurants. Even in Britain, the pioneer of privatisation and liberalisation policies in Europe, some cities such as Nottingham, Leeds, or Bristol have created new municipal energy companies to address energy poverty and shift towards renewable sources. In Spain, many cities conquered by progressive citizen coalitions in the 2015 municipal elections have embarked on systematic remunicipalisation policies. At the other end of the continent, in Norway, a similar process has been unfolding, with city councils led by progressive coalitions implementing a reversal of past privatisations of social services, in close coordination with trade unions.

Of course, as the list above illustrates, remunicipalisation can take many different forms. In some sectors, such as water, it involves taking back into public hands a service that is a natural monopoly. In other sectors that have been historically or recently liberalised, it is realised through the creation of new, not-for-profit companies that provide a ‘public option’ – whether they are public-owned, cooperatives, or hybrid forms. Many cases of remunicipalisation have been and continue to be politically polarising, but many are not. Sometimes citizens themselves are in the driving seat, and the newly created public services open a significant space for citizen participation; sometimes the process is confined to city council meeting rooms. The word ‘remunicipalisation’ itself could be questioned, because some of the services in question had never been publicly managed or didn’t previously exist, because it is happening at intermunicipal or regional, rather than city, level and because some of what we call remunicipalisation actually involves cooperatives and other forms of citizen-owned, rather than city-owned, companies.

Nevertheless, out of all this diversity a coherent picture can be drawn: not a turn of the tide (except in some sectors in some countries) nor a coherent movement, but an emerging remunicipalisation trend that has the potential to be a game-changer, in many ways, and far beyond public services. This trend has remained mostly under the radar, apart from some clear exceptions such as the German Energiewende, because most of it happens at local level, as local authorities do not necessarily wish to publicise the actions they are taking, for fear of being accused of being ideologically-driven, and of course because there are powerful players that would rather keep people in the dark about these possibilities.

Beyond de-privatisation

So why Europe, and why now? First, in the shorter term, the economic crisis and austerity imposed on local authorities in Europe has forced many of them to take a closer, harder look at their budgets and to seek greater control over their expenses. And more often than not they have indeed found, in spite of what private sector propagandists continue to repeat tirelessly, that privatisation is more expensive than direct public management. When, for example, Paris remunicipalised its water services in 2010, it saved 35 million euros a year just by foregoing payments to parent companies. Later, the regional court of auditors confirmed that remunicipalisation had allowed Paris to “decrease the price of water while maintaining high investment levels”.

In Newcastle, United Kingdom, the modernisation of signalling and fiber optic cable system was carried out by a new in-house team for about 11 million pounds, compared with more than double this figure that it would have cost if done by a private company. The city of Bergen, Norway, where two elderly care centres were taken back in-house, had a surplus of half a million euros whereas a one million loss was expected. The costs of waste collection and cleaning services decreased from 20 to 10 million euros annually in León, Spain, with remunicipalisation, and 224 workers have received public employment contracts.

Second, 20 years or so have now passed since the large waves of liberalisation and privatisation of public services that swept both Western and Eastern Europe in the 1990s and early 2000s. It is a good time to appraise the real achievements and shortcomings of private management. It is also a time where a lot of concessions, leases, and so-called ‘public private partnerships’ (or PPPs) contracts expire, and get to be renewed – or not. Whereas privatisation of services such as water has been more in the limelight in past decades, outsourcing to the private sector has also started to progress in sectors such as local health and social services, and local administration. It is interesting to see many examples of remunicipalisation in precisely these sectors in countries such as Norway, Sweden, or Austria, where water, for instance, has never been privately managed. Local authorities seem to have found they could provide a better service directly, at a lower cost and with better conditions for workers.

When Paris remunicipalised its water services in 2010, it saved 35 million euros a year just by foregoing payments to parent companies.

But the story of remunicipalisation is not just about reversing past privatisation or redressing its failures. In many sectors, it is also about a profound reinvention of public services; a paradigm change. In the energy sector, this is obvious enough, with the rise of decentralised, renewables-based energy systems. But the ongoing paradigm shift is not restricted to addressing climate change, in the narrow sense. It is also visible, for instance, in the waste sector, with the emergence of ‘zero waste’ policies. Reducing waste volumes is often mentioned as one of the key motivations for cities that have decided to remunicipalise waste collection and disposal services, because it is in contradiction with the business model of private waste companies, which remains entirely focused on landfills and incineration.

Similarly, in France, the main reason why many small and large cities have recently remunicipalised school restaurants is to provide organic, local food to children, whereas contractors such as Sodexo typically relied on standardised, international supply chains. Some smaller French towns even source the food for their school restaurants from local municipal farms, or through partnerships with local farming cooperatives. The strong connection between remunicipalisation and the ‘relocalisation’ of the economy (and of the cash generated by public service bills) is a common thread that cuts across all these sectors.

A renewed focus on cities and on citizen involvement

It is no coincidence that we see cities at the forefront of this movement. Indeed, they are first in line to deal both with the consequences of austerity and with the new challenges of climate change and resource constraints. It is at the local level that reality strikes, and it is harder for local politicians than for national or European ones to ignore the very concrete daily consequences of public policies. One would also like to think that European cities have retained a bit of their political traditions of freedom, asylum, and citizenship. There is no doubt that active citizen involvement and participation – for which cities remain the most natural space – is at the heart of the ongoing paradigm shift and has been a fundamental driver behind many of the most interesting remunicipalisation cases of recent years in Europe, whether in alliance with local politicians or against them.

Citizens have pushed local authorities to reclaim public services and in many cases have played an active part in creating and running these very services. In doing so, they are effectively reinventing what ‘public’ actually means. Fundamentally, it is about (re)building collective capacity and solidarity, beyond public services. In this sense, there is indeed a strong connection between the fight for local public services and the fight for the rights of refugees and migrants. The example of Barcelona and other Spanish cities, where years of organising against evictions and water or power cuts have led to the election of progressive municipalities committed both to remunicipalisation and migrants’ rights, are just some amongst many illustrations of this connection.

Cities are first in line to deal both with the consequences of austerity and with the new challenges of climate change and resource constraints.

All of this begs the question, of course, of whether the current emphasis on the role of cities in the public services sphere – and in climate issues or the topic of welcoming refugees and migrants – reflects, before anything else, a retreat of progressive forces from the national level. Are national governments not, at the same time, increasingly committed to the interests of big business and to forcing austerity on society, local authorities included? Although remunicipalisation is alive and thriving throughout most of Europe, there is also a distressing pattern of national governments actively opposing and seeking to prevent it. The Spanish government, along with the private operator and other business bodies, actually took the city of Valladolid to court, after it remunicipalised its water system. It has also adopted legislation to prevent the creation of new municipal companies or new public service jobs. Similarly, the UK now has a law actually banning city councils from creating new local bus companies.

Even if they do not all go to such extremes, it would be difficult to name one European government that is actually encouraging or even merely enabling remunicipalisation at the moment. As for the European institutions, they officially maintain some form of ‘neutrality’ towards the public or private management of essential services. But the culture prevalent at the Commission and the balance of power at the European Parliament and Council results in rules and legislations that, even when they do not directly favour the interests of large corporate players, tend to consider integrated, liberalised markets at European level, where a handful of large for-profit players compete with each other, as the ‘normal’ way things should be organised. Big business knows how to make itself heard in Brussels, whereas the local governments and citizen movements that drive the remunicipalisation movement on the ground have a weaker presence, if any, in the European capital.

Networks of cities to counterbalance corporate influence

Can the remunicipalisation trend thrive and expand without proper support at the national and European levels? Do cities have the capacity to deal, by themselves, with the wider economic and geopolitical forces at work today, over which they have very little control? In the short term, remunicipalisation and the fight for better, democratic, sustainable and inclusive public services will continue to depend on the personal energy and motivation of citizens and officials. This certainly appears fragile in comparison to the established machineries of the private sector and unfavourable national and EU policies. However, there is potential for responding to the challenge. Networks of collaboration between remunicipalised public services are building up at regional, national, and European level, particularly in the water and energy sectors. Mutual assistance between cities can be an effective way to address the limitations of smaller, local public operators in comparison to large multinationals; and it could even become an effective check on the influence of multinationals over public policies.

Of course, these networks also need to develop beyond the limits of Western Europe, particularly in places where the balance of power between cities and large international companies (who more often than not have headquarters and shareholders in Western Europe) is much more unfavourable. The Eastern half of the continent is the obvious place to start. Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, has recently decided not to renew its heating contract with Veolia and is now facing a one million euro compensation claim in front of an international arbitration tribunal. A few years ago, the authorities of Sofia, Bulgaria, cancelled a referendum on water remunicipalisation, allegedly because they were threatened with exactly the same kind of procedure. And whilst countries such as France, Germany, Spain or even the UK are experiencing a wave of public services remunicipalisation, their governments and the European Union often turn into active promoters of the private sector’s role in providing essential services in other countries and continents, including by subsidising European multinationals under the mask of ‘development assistance’.

The remunicipalisation movement in Europe already demonstrates that there is an alternative for the future of public services to the vision currently prevailing at the EU and national levels. One of the key challenges ahead is to consolidate this alternative vision and impose it on institutional agendas, both within Europe itself and in its relations with the rest of the world and particularly the Global South. With remunicipalisation, and with the reinvention of public services that it often entails, Europe has something much more valuable to share with the world.

The Green European Journal, published by the European Green Foundation, has published a very interesting special issue focusing on the urban commons, which we want to specially honour and support by bringing individual attention to several of its contributions. This is our 4th article in the series. It’s a landmark special issue that warrants reading it in full.

Photo by Harald Felgner

The post Can Cities and Citizens Reinvent Public Services? appeared first on P2P Foundation.

On the second weekend in June, hundreds of people flocked to Barcelona to discuss the idea of municipalism and radical democracy, broadly under the banner of “Fearless Cities.” This event also served to commemorate two years of progressive leadership throughout many of Spain’s city halls, including Madrid and Barcelona. Activists, mayors, city council members, academics, and NGO workers came together to explore such themes as “feminizing politics,” “sanctuary and refuge,” and “anti-corruption and transparency.” Despite these weighty ideas, the event was joyous and at times jubilant. During an opening conversation that served to welcome participants, Manuela Carmena and Ada Colau, the mayors of Madrid and Barcelona, spoke of friendship and intimacy even during our dark geopolitical moment. Indeed, despite this light tone, Trump was often in evidence.

Since the beginning of their administrations, these citizens’ platforms in Spain have explicitly staked a left-leaning claim against the hard right turn of the government, particularly regarding immigrants and the question of Europe’s ongoing refugee crisis. Early on, both Madrid and Barcelona declared themselves to be cities of refuge; Madrid’s city hall has proudly worn a “Refugees Welcome” banner for the better part of two years. With Trump’s victory, presaged on this side of the Atlantic by the rise of Le Pen and Wilders, Poland’s renewed nationalism, the endless drama of Brexit, and the constant specter of Islamophobia in response to terrorism, those sentiments are important antidotes to a global turn towards fear and hate.

Spain, however, still seems far removed from Lesbos and Lampedusa, and has yet to receive an influx of refugees. At the same time, its population grows ever more diverse, and its major cities are now full of multi-ethnic neighborhoods. Wandering the Raval neighborhood in Barcelona on a Monday, I chanced upon a school getting out for lunch; the young students who streamed out were Filipino, Pakistani, and Chinese with nary a “native” face in sight. This is the newest generation of urban Spaniards. Yet despite the dramatic demographic shifts, neither “Fearless Cities” nor the broader project of Spanish municipalism has taken up the question of immigration and ethnic and racial difference as a serious component of contemporary urban governance. While Barcelona’s charismatic and charming deputy mayor (and friend of the UDL), Gerardo Pisarello, is a Latino immigrant, the ranks of Barcelona en Comu and Ahora Madrid are startlingly devoid of migrant voices. And despite having emerged in part from the multi-ethnic housing movement, these platforms often appear to treat migrants as objects of political action instead of incorporating them as fellow political subjects.

This reality was brought home during a session on initiating municipalism in the United States. As Kali Akuno of Cooperation Jackson described his organization’s efforts to reclaim an urban politics of redistribution, it was clear that historical legacies of enslavement continue to shape the present in a majority black city where whites control the vast majority of wealth. This point was driven home by Jennifer Epps-Addison from the Center for Popular Democracy, who pointed to the salience of race in contemporary urban struggles, yet its absence within a conference meant to confront injustice and oppression within the city. In a later session on the rise of White Nationalism, few non-Americans were in attendance. However as a woman from Brussels reminded the audience, racism and fear of the ethnic other infect everyday discourse and policy directives, configuring the now infamous neighborhood of Molenbeek into a dangerous cancer to be excised from the greater urban polity. In a rousing closing, the Bishop Dwayne Royster, the National Network Political Director for PICO, a faith-based organizing network, instructed the audience: “White supremacy predates America. It’s a European construct.” Indeed, while America’s tangled racial history is in many ways its own, race and racism haunt the continent. As Europe’s aging nations replenish their populations with communities born elsewhere, cities are the crucible for new forms of encounter and exchange. Thus a truly emancipatory municipalism must engage with difference—class, gender, age, and yes, race—in the pursuit of radical democracy.

Photo by Diego Sideburns

The post Fearless Cities: A Dispatch from Barcelona 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.

Reposted from our friends at the Transnational Institute, a new report authored by Satoko Kishimoto, Olivier Petitjean and Lavinia Steinfort.

From New Delhi to Barcelona, from Argentina to Germany, thousands of politicians, public officials, workers, unions and social movements are reclaiming or creating public services to address people’s basic needs and respond to environmental challenges.

They do this most often at the local level. Our research shows that there have been at least 835 examples of (re)municipalisation of public services worldwide since 2000, involving more than 1,600 municipalities in 45 countries.

Why are people around the world reclaiming essential services from private operators and bringing their delivery back into the public sphere? There are many motivations behind (re)municipalisation initiatives: a goal to end private sector abuse or labour violations; a desire to regain control over the local economy and resources; a wish to provide people with affordable services; or an intention to implement ambitious climate strategies.

Remunicipalisation is taking place in small towns and in capital cities, following different models of public ownership and with various levels of involvement by citizens and workers. Out of this diversity a coherent picture is nevertheless emerging: it is possible to build efficient, democratic and affordable public services. Ever declining service quality and ever increasing prices are not inevitable. More and more people and cities are closing the chapter on privatisation, and putting essential services back into public hands.

Messages from Vienna, Barcelona and Paris

Ulli Sima, Vienna City Councilor for the Environment and Wiener Stadtwerke: “As early as 2001, Vienna protected drinking water with a constitutional decision. Municipal services must remain public and should not be sacrificed to private profit. We want to ally with other cities for strong municipal services.”

Eloi Badia, the Barcelona Councilor for presidency, water and energy: “It is important to demystify the process of privatisation that has been launched in recent years by several governments, because it’s a model that has not proved its efficiency, failing to offer a better service or a better price.”

Célia Blauel, President of Eau de Paris and Deputy Mayor of Paris in charge of the environment, sustainable development, water and the energy-climate plan: “Bringing local public services under public control is a major democratic issue, especially for such essential services as energy or water. It means greater transparency and better citizen supervision. In the context of climate change, it can contribute to leading our cities toward energy efficiency, the development of renewables, the conservation of our natural resources, and the right to water. ”

Key findings of the book

1. There are better solutions than privatisation
2. Remunicipalisation is far more common than presumed, and it works
3. Remunicipalisation is a local response to austerity
4. Remunicipalisation is a key strategy for energy transition and energy democracy
5. Bringing services back in-house is ultimately cheaper for local authorities
6. Remunicipalisation drives better, more democratic public services
7. Remunicipalisation presents 835 more reasons to fight trade and investment deals
8. Lessons learned: Don’t privatise in the first place
9. Remunicipalisation provides opportunities for new, diversified, democratic public ownership
10. Remunicipalising cities and citizens groups are working together and building networks

The book is published by Transnational Institute (TNI), Multinationals Observatory, Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour (AK), European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU), Ingeniería Sin Fronteras Cataluña (ISF), Public Services International (PSI), Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU), We Own It, Norwegian Union for Municipal and General Employees (Fagforbundet), Municipal Services Project (MSP) and Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE).

Download

• Reclaiming public services(pdf, 1.66 MB)
• Reclaiming public services – Summary in Spanish(doc), 2.21 MB)
  Average time to read: 20
• Reclaiming public services – Summary in French(doc), 2.21 MB)
  Average time to read: 20
• Reclaiming public services – Summary in English(pdf, 4.41 MB)
  Average time to read: 20

The post Reclaiming Public Services: How cities and citizens are turning back privatisation appeared first on P2P Foundation.

This week I had the privilege of joining the Fearless Cities conference, hosted by Barcelona en Comú, a citizen platform founded by 15M and PAH activists in 2014.

The conference announced a global municipalist network, featuring delegates from more than 100 cities around the world.

Municipalism is a movement of cities taking power from states, and using that power to transform politics from the bottom up. For a good intro, check out this recent article from Kate Shea Baird: A new international municipalist movement is on the rise — from small victories to global alternatives.

The conference named two goals for the municipalists:

• to feminize politics — developing new ways of organising based on horizontal collaboration, collective intelligence and the politics of everyday life, and,
• to stop the far right — combating the politics of hate and fear with local policies that reduce inequality and promote the common good.

The speakers were hugely inspiring. To give you a taste, I’ve extracted quotes from the four sessions I attend.

Democracy from the Bottom Up: Municipalism and other Stories

I found myself nodding along with everything shared by Debbie Bookchin, daughter of the original municipalists, Beatrice and Murray Bookchin:

All ecological problems are social problems. We can’t address ecological problems without resolving our addiction to domination and hierarchy. We need to fundamentally alter our social relations. How do we bring an egalitarian society into being? The municipality is a logical arena to start. […]

Social change won’t occur by voting for the candidate who promises a minimum wage, free education etc., only an activated citizen movement can transform society. […]

Local assemblies transform citizens. We are made new humans by participating. We grow beyond capitalist modernity.

Ritchie Torres from the NYC Council, opened with two questions about the US context:

• How do we achieve progressive municipal governance in a world of federal divestment?
• How do you bring participatory politics while so deeply entrenched in two-party politics?

They said their greatest achievement in NYC “is that we’ve brought into mainstream a new idea of municipal government. It’s common sense now that local government is not just for filling potholes, it can be a force for equity. […] We’re not just a legislature, we’re a vehicle for community organising. Being merely a legislature, you will be undermined by legislative and financial activism from the right. But if you’re organising communities, you can make headway.”

Sinam Mohamad was greeted by a standing ovation from the crowd, inspired by stories from Rojava, the autonomous region in the north of Syria:

We in Rojava have built decentralised, democratic self-rule in an extremely difficult situation. Economic embargo, besieged, terrorist attacks, chauvinist mentalities… In spite of all this, we built our municipalism. […]

Kobanî faced an attack from ISIS; a city full of fear, everyone frightened by the attack. Fear means you are dying while you are alive. Turkish bombs in our cities, villages. Children sleeping with fear. Mothers afraid for their families. We struggled for peace, which we have achieved now. We built a democratic administration together. Not just Kurds but a mosaic of religions and nations: Turkmen, Arabs, Syrians, Assyrians, Muslim, Yezidi, Christian, and so on. All agree to coexist in this area. This is our aim, to live together without fear. All the people come together and agree to the social contract.

If you don’t have an organisation that is very well organised for equal gender, you won’t have a free society. Free women = free society. Constitutionally we have equal genders, 50–50 participation. Co-president system means we have Mr and Mrs Presidents.

See my full notes from that session here.

Sanctuary and Refuge Cities

On Sunday morning, we joined a panel on Sanctuary and Refuge Cities. Speakers included city officials from Barcelona, NYC, Berlin, Kilkis (Greece), and Paris. Some highlights:

Daniel Gutierrez from Interventionistische Linke in Berlin explained how they created an anonymous health card so migrants can access services without fear of deportation. The same is happening in Barcelona and parts of France. Ignasi Calvó explained that the Barcelona ID is a municipal (not national) register of citizens, so they can bypass the racist laws of the Spanish state, but it still carries state validity, conferring automatic rights to anyone carrying it in the EU. He warned though, “If you’re going to use civil disobedience, you have to ensure the consequence will be on the city, not on the migrant.”

Each of the speakers reiterated the same simple point: that everyone should have access to the same rights. They argued against categorical distinctions between migrants, refugees, and other residents, as these categories create exclusion.

Amélie Canonne from Emmaus International explained how the state fuels radicalisation: “Repression creates radicalisation, both within migrant communities and in the activists working in solidarity with them. In EU, food distribution is banned, activists are arrested, trialled, radicalised.”

Comments from the audience revealed the huge intelligence in the room. For instance, one commenter shared their concerns about the elephant in the room: the question of race. “This has been a colourblind discourse, forgetting the racial aspect, treating migrants as foreigners rather than people of colour. In the US, white nationalism is one of the main drivers working against migrants.” For more on this, see my recent article on white nationalist militias resisting migration from Latin America.

A city councillor from Philadelphia agreed, explaining how systemic bias is compounded against people with intersecting identities, not just “people of colour”, but “low income, migrant, people of colour.”

A Lebanese participant shared some broader context: “We have been receiving refugees for 60 years, maybe 2 million of them. We have a lot to say about the experience! Are these European cities connecting with the history of refugees in Lebanon? We have made so many failures, and success stories too. Many European cities are coming at this for the first time, learn from us!”

It was inspiring to hear so many cities taking radical steps to resist the racist policies imposed at the national level. See my full notes from that session here.

For the closing plenary, Kali Akuno shared razor-sharp analysis from their experience in Jackson, Mississippi.

“In Jackson we talk about the “Syriza trap” — thinking that our leftist forces can manage the contradictions of capitalism. Thinking we can transform capitalism without transforming society. Where has that ever happened? We need to transform society from the bottom up in a participatory way.”

They reiterated “proximity”, a theme woven throughout the conference:

“Direct contact with your neighbour. Find out their interests, hopes, desires, fears, then organise for what you want, and to not be subject to those fears. You will have to confront racism, sexism, xenophobia: you can overcome that at the local level and create a practice to open your neighbourhood to new people.”

The map of participants shows the global extent of this emerging movement

We then heard updates from delegates from around the world. The UK delegate received enthusiastic applause throughout their short speech:

“Use political office as a resource to support the transformation from below. We’ve learned the lessons from feminism, we change the order when we refuse to participate.”

A panel discussion with no white men. How has this never happened before?

Finally, at the end of the day we enjoyed a one last panel — a furious, joyful, incendiary lineup of speakers. I took fairly comprehensive notes, which you can read here.

Yayo Herrero was one of the most incredible speakers I’ve ever seen. Their transformation recipe is worth quoting in full (that is, my transcription of the English translation of the recipe):

“Acknowledge the very clear reality: that material reduction is not catastrophe. It is a catastrophe to not address this with equity and justice.

“We are obliged to think about freedom and a framework of rights that is not just individual but has a relational sphere.

“We need to imagine an ecologist feminist alternative that is anchored in the land, and in our bodies. Put life and sustainability as a political and economic priority. Expel markets as the centre of the political logic. Challenge the perverse logic that if we don’t keep on feeding this exploitive system we won’t grow wellbeing.

“We need a different way of science and technology. We need to expel the part of science that is based on fantasy, promoting things that are not possible, or only possible for a few. Put science in the service of life.

“We need social organisation where men and women and institutions are co-responsible for care. Life must be cared for, it’s not just a job for women.

“We need alliances that allow us to organise a sabotage to this historic plan. Feminists, entrepreneurs, ecologists, trade unions… build a complicated diverse alliance of majorities.”

Activist philosopher Vandana Shiva spoke last, concluding beautifully:

“Nature is intelligence, diversity, and self-organisation. Municipalism is self-organisation at the level of cities.”

And with that, we were ejected out into the warm Barcelona evening. Reviewing these notes, I’m stunned by the quality of all these speakers. The conference felt very much like a sequel to last year’s Democratic Cities conference in Madrid, where I was first introduced to the idea that cities can offer hope in an age of hopeless states.

The conference organisers got a couple of simple things right which made a profound difference to the mood and the content: they made the event accessible with €20 tickets, and they ensured the majority of speakers were women.

However, with respect, I do want to offer a criticism: every session I attended shared the same linear format, with one person speaking, and a room full of intelligent, engaged, creative people simply listening. We can do so much better than this! As Vandana said, municipalism is self-organisation at the scale of the city — I’m hungry for self-organisation at the scale of the conference. We can use horizontal collaboration structures like “Open Space Technology” to unlock the collective intelligence of all the participants. We can intentionally design for relationship-building, rather than hoping for it to emerge passively in the hallways and lunch breaks. This Thursday my partner Nati and I are hosting a workshop on self-organising at the scale of 10s to 100s of people; perhaps we can convince some of the conference organisers to join us and the next Fearless Cities event will have a format to match the content.

Want to read more like this? Click here to support my writing

The post How a Global Network of #FearlessCities is Making Racist Colonial Nation States Obsolete 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.