Commons Governance Work Group
Our Mission: We seek to assist in the creation of an integral model of co-governance that can be applied both within existing and emergent commons in various developmental stages and contexts. The Commons Defined: We understand the commons to be a sphere of life that is distinct, both from the public sphere of government provision and distribution, a ...learn more
GROUP DETAILS
Created: Feb 26, 2009
Updated: Nov 27, 2009
Membership: Open
Semi-Private
Topic: Advice needed please on proposal to legally redefine ownership as guardianship
Posts (1 - 5 of 5)
|
|
Over the past few centuries, we have become confused about the meaning of property and have come to assume that all property is inherently private. But there is a key difference between propertizing and privatizing our commons resources. Common property is managed by people who self-organize the rules and institutions for managing a commons, as opposed to corporate property which is essentially aimed at benefiting pirvate shareholders. The privatization of property has often led to a tragedy of the commons -- the depletion of a commons by too many users and hence the devaluation of the resource. We recognize that the private sector is best equipped to allocate resources efficiently in the marketplace, but has a very spotty record of preserving the assets of a commons and sharing its benefits equitably. There is a solution to this problem, which is rapidly catching on across the world. It involves creating or reassigning the peoples' sovereign rights to property. Instead of government allowing the private sector to expropriate a commons, the State can assign those rights to commons institutions. This is often based on the idea of trusts, which is a very old although underutilized form of resource management. It's impossible to say exactly where the idea of commons trusts originated because the idea pre-dates that of the private sector itself. Some trace the concept back to the Magna Carta, which gave people some limited rights to managing their own commons. The idea of the commons has always been around -- although it has not been clearly defined because it has remained among the commoners themselves in their everyday practices and traditions. It is now being defined in distinction to the private and public sectors. Today, 'public trusts' include things like land trusts, municipal wi-fi, public space, farmers' markets, watershed trusts, airshed trusts, and many other proposed trusts for the global commons. What is needed now is a realization that the State has an important role to play in restoring the balance of commons rights between the private sector and the commons sector. Think of water rights -- should the rights for the allocation of water be vested in the private sector or with the people who need that water? Government can help alleviate these kinds of conflicts by granting more licenses for the management of commons resources to commons trusts. A commons trust has responsibilites that differ from the private sector. A commons is shared or used by many stakeholders. In order to ensure that a commons is managed sustainably, what we take from a commons should be commensurate with what we put back in and all people who are stakeholders should have a voice in setting the rules and norms of the commons. This includes means of monitoring abuses and conflict resolution. It is expected that the trustees of a commons will be faithful to the interests of their stakeholders, provide them with timely information and/or dividends, and preserve the resources of the commons for future generations. If we move in this direction, commons organizations could form a third sphere beyond the private (business) and public (government) sectors and develop the political power to make the changes needed in the allocation and preservation of commons resources in modern society. James B. Quilligan
|
|
|
Thanks James, I realised my question was vague. I wasn't asking about the proposal for commons, but an allied proposal addressing commodification of the Earth. Here's the clip from my piece for NATO Seven Policy Switches for Global Security. Glad of any clues where this might have originated? Or is it new? Many thanks, James 6.1. This One’s Finished, Can We Have a New Planet Please? A study involving more than 1,360 experts worldwide over four years warned of an “increasing likelihood of nonlinear changes in ecosystems including accelerating, abrupt, and potentially irreversible changes” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). This means that humanity is undefended against the day when key ecosystem services are no longer available. Then civilisation will have won all its battles against nature and then suddenly, tragically lost the war. 6.2. Valuing Nature? Pavan Sukhdev, author the EU-commissioned study The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity (TEEB, 2008) reports that the world is losing more wealth from the disappearance of forests than from the credit crunch, “...at today's rate we are losing natural capital at least between US$2-$5 trillion every year.” Schemes to value nature by paying for it (including the above precycling insurance) can help but they also reinforce the commodification of the Earth. All such schemes are up against continuing large-scale exploitation and destruction that excuses itself just by saying, “It’s mine”. 6.3. Belonging “A person lives on the land for a brief time and is gone, but the land endures. So people must be careful to preserve it - to live by the old Native saying that, ‘The real owners of the land have not been born yet.” Among Native people, the land and all that grows upon it is treated with the greatest respect. It, and everything in it, is sacred, and it's up to the people who use it to protect it as well.” (Gale, 2002). Any serious attempt at global security means regaining this sense of belonging quickly, fully and everywhere. A sense of belonging and guardianship is equally suited to private, state and commons areas of the Earth. 6.4. Ownership can Evolve From Mastery to Guardianship Existing practices of ownership of the Earth’s surface haven’t worked since they rely on every individual owner respecting a rarely observed line between natural capital and the sustainable ‘interest’ of renewable harvests. This line and a sense of belonging to the Earth can be restored with a policy switch within the cultural and legal meaning of ownership. Ownership of a piece of the Earth can be reinterpreted by international treaty as a duty of care to future generations. All land, sea and non-renewable resource ownership title should be interpreted as a title of guardianship of ecological capital. All rights for access and use of natural resources should be interpreted as applying only to the renewable harvest, to diminish neither biological diversity nor ecosystem services. Use of non-renewable resources should encompass a compensating expansion in ecosystems and a guarantee (such as precycling insurance) of protecting the resources within circular flows. 6.5. Let’s try Forward Gear Reversing the loss of nature is not a bad deal for owners, as can be explained by farmers of barren lands and fishermen of barren seas. Making this switch is like finding a car rolling back towards a cliff edge and helping the sleepy driver to locate forward gear. Although the driver may be startled by the intrusion, they will be pleased to keep the car and to be able to move on. One class of owner will remain unhappy; the minority with no intention other than to convert their corner of the world into private profit. Whether to avoid this policy switch in order to cater for such intentions is a straight-forward test of political process. 6.6. Compensation This policy switch effectively gives the world to the unborn future. In compensation, the present gets to have a future. Nations would gain new reasons to co-operate more and fight less. Populations characterised by separateness would gain a share of growing abundance. Depleted soils and waters would be restocked with diverse life. For those with less interest in such tangible compensations there are more direct options. Those who have degraded ecosystems may be relieved of the privilege of ownership. Those without an interest in guardianship could bid for funds to compensate them for the transfer of title to a community-based trust of landless people. Funds could also be provided for bids to permanently sequester non-renewable resources, such as fossil fuels. |
|
|
My question may be beyond the interests of this group so no worries and many thanks anyhow. All the best, James
|
|
Hello James Greyson,
Your ideas are not beyond our interest. Your writings on "guardianship" as it modifies "ownership" fits very well into our thinking about the value changes that underlie the growth of commons trusts, as James Quilligan has described them in his post.
I can suggest that you upload a paragraph about the relative meanings of quardianship/ownership of the earth onto our "clip page." You can add it under the category titled "Lower Left" or "cultural" quadrant. |
Please can someone help me learn where this proposal originated? I guess it must be an old idea to try to hand the Earth over legally to future generations but I don't know where it started or what has happened with it, if anything. It would be one of the ways to do Rights of Nature I guess, and would apply to the whole Earth not just commons. Please see section 6 of Policy Switches for Global Security (for a NATO Science meeting) for a full outline of the proposal. Many thanks in advance, James