Cover of the Cosmo-local handbook which reads "Cosmo-local work: Organisational practices for equitable and sustainable living."

Cosmo-local Work: Using Commons Based Practices for Equitable and Sustainable Living

By Alex Pazaitis, Chris Giotitsas, Nikos Exarchopoulos, Vasilis Kostakis

Contents

Introduction

Rising inequality and an unprecedented environmental degradation may be the most pressing issues of our times. Empowered by modern information and communication technologies, individuals and communities around the globe have engaged in activity that exceeds traditional forms of activism. Instead they have devised novel configurations of working and producing together within a framework of openness, equity and sustainability.

This type of production is aggregated under the term “Commons-based Peer Production” and the organisational model is codified as “Design Global – Manufacture Local.”

The Cosmolocalism project has produced a handbook, downloadable below, which explores such practices through four indicative cases of communities, which engage in differing productive activity but are driven by the same values. It is not a comprehensive guide on how to do things. Instead it offers critical insight stemming from four distinct, yet similar in ethos and overarching goals, exemplary initiatives which utilise their respective local dynamics as well as globally produced knowledge and resources to engage in productive activity. This activity is unique both in organisational configuration and produced artefacts.

The following excerpts from the handbook discuss some key concepts and include a case study regarding a cooperative project which openly shares information and problem solving tools, and develops and produces technological solutions, for small scale, organic agriculture.

What is P2P?

Peer to peer is a type of organisational architecture that partitions and distributes workloads amongst peers.

The term originates in computer networks popularised by file sharing systems in the late 1990s (like Napster). Peers share resources and power without the use of a central administration node making this type of network more resilient and scalable. So it is fairly easy to see how this model has inspired the application of similar structures in other areas of societal activity as well as the creation of a philosophical movement for the creation of a social structure that is made possible through information and communication technologies.

What is Commons-based Peer Production?

Commons-based peer production (hereafter CBPP) describes a production system, powered by information and communication technologies, in which individuals are free to co-operate and co-create. Their creative output is a commons.

Meaning communal resources, administered by its users based on mutually agreed upon regulations and customs.

The commons could potentially be considered “rivalrous goods” (like fisheries) that cannot be attained by more that one person at a time or “non-rival goods”, where use may be simultaneous by multiple individuals without any value depletion (in fact, value is increased like for instance open source software whose code is improved upon by multiple users). Here, the focus is placed primarily on the latter category. Meaning that the creative output of the cases presented is primarily digital commons.

There is a growing ecosystem of commons-based peer production initiatives: from the free encyclopedia Wikipedia to open source software projects, to open hardware communities, which produce from low-cost 3D printed prosthetic arms to agricultural tools and machines, to small-scale wind and hydro-electric power generators.

While the term was originally introduced to describe internet-based intellectual work, it has greatly expanded in scope over the years. Only one of the cases presented in this handbook engages in this sort of activity specifically. The rest produce predominantly (but not exclusively) open source hardware. This illustrates the adaptability of this model of production through various configurations. One of the configurations is presented next.

What is Design Global – Manufacture Local?

Design Global – Manufacture Local (hereafter DG-ML) is an organisational and production configuration which encapsulates the common features identified in all CBPP initiatives. These features are briefly mentioned in its name.

Contrary to the industrial logic of limiting intellectual property and transnational supply chains that enable massive economies of scale, Design Global – Manufacture Local promotes global access to industrial knowledge and localised physical construction.

Meaning that design of technologies and products may take place collaboratively, with the assistance of information and small-scale fabrication technologies (both precision tools like 3D printers and laser cutters and traditional low tech equipment), in a global scale while at the same time adapted for local manufacturing according to specific needs and preferences.

This type of configuration is complementary to the concept of circular economies as it makes smaller, regional cycles or production/repair/recycling possible.

Furthermore, it rejects the decontextualisation of inputs – outputs in the industrial process and their related externalities, which may harm communities and the environment alike, as it is geared towards sustainability and well-being rather than financial growth.

Commons based peer production as a production mode and DG-ML as an organisational framework present an optimistic vision in a seemingly desperate time. It is not only a different mode of economic relations with regards to resource allocation but also, potentially, a radically different way to exist as a society. – pg. 11

A diagram of the L’atelier paysan model of Commoning which shows farmers feeding into and joining in a coop and operations group which then produces a workshop and platform.

The L’atelier paysan model of organisation

Case Study: L’atelier Paysan

L’atelier paysan shows us how such an initiative may tap into any potential resources in a national context to design and implement highly participatory technology development and collaboration processes by empowering the users of the technology itself to shape it.

L’atelier paysan is a farming initiative, in France, which develops and openly shares tools for small scale, organic agriculture. It began as a subgroup of an organic farming association but after activities intensified, it became an non-profit cooperative. This means its shareholders receive no dividends and the shares are not re-invested.

Any positive balance the cooperative has every year is transferred into an indivisible reserve which funds their activities. Acquiring a share provides the shareholder with the capacity to participate in the decision-making and visioning of the coop, not much else.

While the technological output as well as the values of projects like Farm Hack (also covered in the handbook) and L’atelier paysan are indeed similar (if not the same) their organisational structure and operational capacities are quite different for a number of socioeconomic and cultural reasons.

Let’s explore an example. Being in France, which has a social welfare net (albeit one that is deteriorating due to austerity) with various support structures, means that the organisation manages to secure state funding to a large degree. That may be through EU, national and regional structural funding for agriculture. Or a special mutualised state fund for vocational training and skill development, as well as crowdfunding and donations from other social solidarity groups active in the country. Activity is boosted by those resources. Training workshops which are conducted throughout France with the assistance of three fully equipped trucks that function as mobile workstations. These workshops last three to five days, take place in farms, warehouses or any other suitable space. The nature, location and time of the workshops are defined by the farmers themselves at the end of each year according to their specific needs and time availability.

The workshops involve learning of manufacturing skills through the build of certain tools and machinery (for which farmers can provide funds for the materials and get to keep the machine(s) at the end of the workshop) or the collaborative prototyping of new tools. Either way, they are always initiated by the farmers.

At least a group of 5 people need to be assembled with a specific solution in mind. Then L’atelier paysan provides assistance in the development of the solution in the form of individuals which act as guides or “Sherpas” in the process. Typically they provide design, engineering or similar skills which the farmers themselves may lack.

The aforementioned vocational training scheme allows L’Atelier Paysan to charge for attendance in these workshops and then secure reimbursements for most of the contribution each farmer makes. Furthermore, the state funding enables the coop to hire an operational group, which involves engineers and community workers, in order to facilitate/assist the collaborative design, manufacturing and testing of new technologies as well as other community dissemination activities like gatherings, expos etc.

This allows for the fruition of an enhanced collaborative development mode which is entirely driven by farmer input and facilitated in every step by individuals with the necessary skill sets (engineers, designers, developers, etc). All this leads to a significant volume of technological output and community mobilisation as well as superior quality of tools and comprehensive documentation compared to the frugal and autonomous activity in Farm Hack. However it also means that there is a certain degree of professionalisation and centralisation of activity. Which ultimately reduces independent initiative. The coop acts as a conduit which permeates all levels of activity.

At any rate, the coop’s business model is unique to the specificities of small scale organic agriculture and adapted to the opportunities and resources available in the French context.

It allows them to engage in intensive research and development without having to rely on an aggressive commercialisation model but rather to extract market resources and redirect them into socially driven goals. – pg. 6