Community Wealth Building in the UK : resilience by relocation of the economy

Louise Guillot — Mon, 08 Jun 2020 13:27:35 +0000

How have cities in England built their resilience after the 2008 crisis, notably by relying on the relocation of the economy, civic empowerment and a new social contract between the administration and local players? What parallels can we make with the approaches to developing the local economy in France? What inspirations to draw from it for the period we are going through, in resonance with calls for a more territorialized approach to the economy ?

We took advantage of this still confined month of May to share with our members the Community wealth building approach – CWB, which we discovered during our learning trip to England as part of the Enacting the Commons project.

Part of the municipalist current, this approach was designed to help cities victims of radical crises to recompose their model from an “extractive” economy to a “regenerative” economy, ensuring that the economic system creates wealth and prosperity for everyone, locally. It has thus developed in the United States and in Great Britain in former industrial cities such as Cleveland or Manchester, where the local economic and social crisis has been coupled with successive waves of privatization and a drastic reduction in the means of local authorities.

Last February, we met in Manchester Neil McInroy and Matthew Baqueriza-Jackson from the Center for Local Economic Strategies – CLES, one of the spearheads of this approach in Great Britain. They both agreed to speak at this webinar to present their work to us, in England, Scotland and Europe.

Community wealth building, or the economy through the lens of social justice

The Center for local Economic Strategies is a “think and do tank” that advocates for an economy serving social justice, efficient public services and local resilience. They help British cities and communities such as Wigan, Preston, Islington, as well as certain Scottish territories to appropriate the CWB approach. Close to British Labor and carrying an ambition for radical transformation, CLES also advised Jeremy Corbyn in the context of the 2019 general elections. They work in close partnership with Democracy Collaborative, an American public transformation laboratory which seeks to promote a systemic approach to the relocation of wealth in the service of more democratic economic models.

By way of introduction to Community wealth building, Neil takes as a starting point the observation of the failure of the liberal market economy to reduce inequalities: “The usual development theories explain to us that economic growth reduces poverty; in reality, we observe that wealth is extracted from the territories in which we live. In the UK, for example, the 5 richest families hold the equivalent of what 13.2 million of their poorest citizens have. In the 1960s and 1970s, thanks to the work of the unions, redistribution was more important, but recently, this concentration has intensified and the Covid-19 crisis only highlights the weaknesses of our model and its lack of resilience.”

Based on this observation, the Community Wealth Building approach seeks to open new perceptions in the way we think about the economy, by proposing to re-organize the wealth of a territory on a new “social contract” in the service of inclusion and community. The goal is no longer growth, but social justice. “In essence, the approach is very simple: taking the territory as a starting point : where does wealth come from and where does it land? How to make sure that it does not evaporate, that there are no leaks, captured by the richest? In three words, we seek to Localize, Socialize, Democratize. ”

A systemic approach

Concretely, CWB is organized into 5 pillars:

i / an alliance of local public institutions (communities, universities, hospitals, etc.) to redirect public spending locally;

ii / stimulating the capacity for initiative and the emergence of a plural and democratic local economy – notably based on a fabric of local or social enterprises, workers’ cooperatives, etc. ;

iii / Local redirection of investment from local banks and pension funds;

iv / decent conditions of employment and wages for workers;

v / the use of land and property in the service of local residents and groups.

It is based in particular on the mobilization of local public institutions (anchored institutions) and on the re-appropriation of issues of general interest by them. Universities, local administration, hospitals, … indeed have an interest in the territory and its development, of which they are also economic actors, as an employer, buyer, etc. They can thus, in a regenerative approach, contribute to democratizing the local economy by relying on local actors, businesses of the territory and the SSE, who are less likely to extract wealth from it; users and employees are more systemically involved, and governance is shared. Conversely, an extractive economy tends to have a weaker relationship with the territory, users are passive, employees work for shareholders and governance is vertical.

Among the CLES partners, the city of Preston (150,000 inhabitants, north of England) has become a textbook case. In 2011, a major development project based on significant foreign investment was abandoned. How to re-think the development of this former industrial city which is struggling to recover from the decline of its activity? The CLES notably helped them to analyze their spending, to rethink their public markets and to develop public services rooted in local entrepreneurship. The contracts were to create new jobs on the territory, cooperatives have developed. The results are largely positive: Preston saw the creation of more than 1,600 jobs, 4,000 additional people paid a living wage, an additional 70 million pounds for the city’s economy, as well as a marked improvement in living environment. “Today, because of the Covid-19, public procurement rules have evolved in Europe and we believe that this constitutes a real window of opportunity to relocate public purchasing.” the city’s success has been widely publicized, including in media such as the Guardian, or even … on France inter.

Another CLES partner, the National Health Service – NHS, which today no longer considers itself only as a health player but also an economic player impacting its territory, as an employer, buyer, developer, etc. Another example is the town of Wigan, following a series of crises, the most recent of which was the drastic reduction in allocations to communities threatening the sustainability of existing public services. She relied on the reading grid of the community wealth building to imagine a new co-responsibility contract between residents and administration, the Wigan deal. Each city has therefore developed its own entry point, according to its challenges, its administrative culture, etc.

Procurement, a CWB entry point

Matthew Baqueriza-Jackson, as part of the European Procure Network, tackled the issue of public procurement, through the prism of the CWB and from a European perspective. “For many, prucurement is boring. For us, the subject is particularly interesting for 3 reasons: In Europe, it is estimated that we spent more than 2000 billion euros on procurement per year. In addition, procurement can be a good lever to address social (job creation for example) and environmental issues. Finally, it is about our money: we have a democratic right to know how public spending is managed. The Covid-19 crisis gives us new opportunities to reflect on this question. Who are the city suppliers? Are they paying enough taxes in these countries? Who are the local businesses? Do they have the possibility of responding to public orders? … ”

The network brings together 11 European cities, with the objective of developing their purchasing methodologies, developing, through training, the integration of social and environmental criteria, and driving transformations at community level, with the adoption of a European agenda on the subject. The Commission, which itself still has a very bureaucratic approach, is gradually starting to integrate these questions. With each city, it involves: i / Analyzing expenses. Where does the money go (sector, geography …)? ii / to develop a strategic purchasing plan. What challenges does the community want to meet? iii / To define a framework for purchases with social value. Can they create jobs? improve the living environment?

The first step notably involves the formulation of new tools for analyzing and measuring the performance of administrations. “There are huge changes going on in this area. Four years ago, we created our own evaluation framework to analyze local spending, with rules and indicators inspired by the work of Economy for the Common Good. Wales, for example, adopted an act for the welfare of future generations a few months ago. The Covid-19 has extended our awareness of what value and efficiency are: we would like to see the end of New Public Management and cost-based efficiency, which is maneuvering in England and taking us straight to the wall . It’s a very powerful notion that is struggling to disappear. “

It is also a question of involving the inhabitants in the markets: “This can go through an association of users in the definition of specifications for public contracts for example. This is done in mental health and youth services, but should be extended to other services. When it comes to public services, it’s not just a contract between a buyer and a business. There is a very strong link between the Community Wealth Building and the new municipalism.”

What about industrial leaders and other large private players? How do you convince them to adopt such approaches? “They are well aware that there is a new demand for value and that they will have to relocate. There is a very strong momentum and those who do not seem fair to the communities will find it difficult to adapt. In Poland, companies want to highlight their CSR but I don’t really like that, these considerations should be anchored at the heart of their strategy. We need to push them to go further and get municipalities to work with chambers of commerce to change the culture of these big companies. ”

The Covid-19 crisis, an accelerator?

“In recent weeks, we have had many conversations in Scotland and Wales who are considering Community Wealth Building as a prospect for reviving their economy, in this context of globalized health crisis. We seek to overturn the current dominant paradigm in order to propose a new one where democracy works for everyone and where we are able to build new environmental models. This need to change paradigm is more and more widely shared. For several years, even the London Financial Times and other rather mainstream newspapers have argued that it is time to “reset” our thinking. ”

“Usual development theories tell us that economic growth helps erode poverty, but in reality we observe that wealth is actually extracted from the territories in which we live. The health crisis has highlighted our vulnerabilities, but it has also revealed the importance of the everyday economy: health, food, etc. This has reshuffled the cards of the professions, and because we have been confined, many ‘we have realized the importance of local life, of parks, of our local systems. As a result, the limits of growth thinking start to appear. ”

The CWB in the light of the ecological crisis

A movement of redeployment of the CWB matrix in the service of the ecological transition of the territories and a “Green new deal” is taking shape today. The city of Preston, for example, declared in 2018 a “climate emergency” situation and developed to respond to it a joint action plan with all of the public institutions in its territory (integration of environmental and zero carbon standards for spending public, etc.); cities such as Barcelona have re-municipalized the management of resources such as water in the form of public-commons partnerships, serving the best in terms of the environment or public health; the growth of local energy cooperatives in the Greater Manchester area has contributed to the creation of new ‘green jobs’, etc

Here is a recording of this discussion :

Going further :

Owning the future, publication on Covid19 and CWB, CLES.
Le modèle de Preston, ou comment le bon sens revient en Angleterre, Histoires économiques, France Inter
What is Community Wealth Building ? Une vidéo pour comprendre rapidement les principes du Community Wealth building – 2015, Democracy Collaborative
Community Wealth Building, 2019 : la théorie, la pratique et les étapes à venir – CLES
Community Wealth Building, an idea afraid of its own radical potential, 2018, Failed Architecture

Uso Civico at the Asilo, Naples. Conversation with Maria Francesca Tullio

Louise Guillot — Tue, 19 May 2020 08:47:03 +0000

Some background elements:

The third city in Italy after Milan and Rome, Naples has suffered in recent years from austerity policies and presents socio-economic indicators that bear witness to this. Historically, there has been a strong challenge to private property and there are important links between the administration and social movements.

In 2007, the Rodotà Commission carried out legal work on the Civil Code in order to recognize its status as a common good, consistent with the social function of property, provided for in the Italian Constitution. This defines them as essential goods to fundamental rights, which must be managed in an open and accessible way, so as to preserve the good for future generations … After 3 years of negotiation, the “Ex Asilo Filangieri ”, a former convent abandoned and occupied by a group of artists, was recognized in 2012 by the Naples City Council as a common good. It is self-managed by an open community, a place for experimenting with participative democracy in the field of culture.

This route was somewhat dialectical – and partly in conflict – with the “Naples Laboratory for a Constituent of Common Goods”, created by the municipality, to map abandoned and unused municipal goods, in collaboration with citizen associations. This laboratory organizes thematic consultations and advice to develop the “uso civico” : a legal tool consisting in giving these public and private abandoned goods to citizens wishing to develop collective projects of social utility that are economically viable.

Finally, in 2015, the municipality recognized the self-government of the community of Asilo, by accepting the Declaration of civic use written by the community itself and defining the rules of use.

In 2016, thanks to this “uso civico” mechanism, the city of Naples granted the status of commons to 7 other emblematic places. These places were public property and have been occupied for a long time by groups from the communities after being abandoned; the communities that illegally occupied these places are now recognized as administrators.

This period of lockdown was an opportunity for us to speak with Maria Francesca De Tullio, lawyer, contributor to the Asilo in Naples (03/18/2020). Here is a report of our exchange:

Maria Francesca De Tullio: Asilo is above all a cultural center and wants to renew the way in which art is produced. The Uso Civico is a little different from what you can see in Bologna. Here, we are talking more about development and direct management. The community has much more power.

Asilo was born out of an occupation of artists protesting against the dominant public policies of concentrating funding on major events and major artistic directions. Before the occupation, it was a building where big events took place. It was managed by concession and was occupied symbolically. It was supposed to last 2-3 days but many residents, researchers, environmental activists and feminists joined the movement. This took place shortly after the joint water referendum, which Naples was the first city to apply. They decided to use this movement to renew institutions and denounce the tendency to sell what was public, under the guise of austerity policies. We finally imagined a way of managing these goods as common goods, open to everyone. They started by holding Assemblies to see how to manage this place in an open, inclusive, anti-fascist, anti-sexist way.

A declaration of civic use has therefore been drawn up. It is a bit of a legacy of “communal goods”, with the difference that in the traditional model there was no assurance that the property would be opened. It has therefore been renewed to ensure that the property is managed by the community and that the development is imagined as an open development.

Then began a long 3-years negotiation with different phases of friendship / conflict with the administration. The administration received these rules of “civic use”, accompanied by a file highlighting the activities and people having passed through the Asilo. The administration finally decided to maintain and support the project by paying for water, electricity and extraordinary works. These methods were then used by 7 other Neapolitan places with different themes.

Was there any methodological help from the Asilo pioneers to help these 7 other places to put together declarations of civic use?

Orbiters, jurists, philosophers of law, etc. helped the emergence of the other places but there weren’t really experts. It is really the communities that set up the management procedures. Another question arises, relating to the representation of the civic value of uses.

The mayor of Naples is in his second term. Before him, we had this municipalist experience with Massa Critica. This movement held public assemblies with the inhabitants. There was already a political network to discuss the themes of the city and beyond. In this network, they have developed legal tools but each space has its rules, its ways of being managed. In other cities, other spaces would also like to join this uso civico.

What was the consensus between the city and Asilo and how did it impact the rules of Asilo? (why is it after reading the rules that it is decided to support?)

These are two different levels but not isolated. Not everyone agreed to ask the administration for recognition. In the end, it was the fruit of discussion within the community assembly. However, all agreed that conventional building management procedures should not apply. The city recognized a new community, attached to constitutional principles, like the principle of equality, and the specifically Italian principle of horizontal subsidiarity.

The call to the meeting is public, the agenda and the report are also public. Before, there was a more restricted assembly and they finally decided to postpone all the decisions to the public assemblies. The administration agreed to give this property under management to the community because it did not want to sell it, it wanted to put it to the use of the community but thought of using conventional tools such as the concession. We had to make proposals, and finally invent a new tool.

All decisions are made by consensus so not everyone was always in agreement, but it helps to be very united. We are trying to understand each other and see how the assembly can make better decisions. 4 hours of meetings are held per week with work tables to operationalize the various proposals.

Why can’t we imagine a place like the Asilo with the Bologna Pacts?

With the pacts, management is shared between the city and the community, and it is the city that controls what has been produced and the value that has been made. Normally, the city does not offer to support the places economically. In civic use, there is recognition that the community decides. It is a recognition of the normative power of the community and of what it can do and change. The condition is that the community is completely open while with the pacts, one can make exclusive use. Also, the uso civico may not have a time limit.

In Bologna, the city decides to give a place to communities but sometimes to the detriment of other social initiatives / movements, who have been expelled from their spaces in a desire to install profitable economic activities there. In Naples, the community chose the spaces itself. However, there are still hybrid models.

How did you think about liability?

The responsibility is that of the city for major works but for daily activities, it is neither the city nor the place; there is a system of self-responsibility. Those who enter sign a declaration of co-responsibility for damage to the place, to third parties and to oneself. It’s a bit like in public space.

In addition, in terms of openness and inclusion, there is a search for communication forms of to address those who would not come naturally to the place, despite the principle of openness.

What if there is a fire and everything is on fire?

These are the rules, but there is no case of application of these rules in such serious cases.
More generally, we have the idea of organizing an international group of jurists and activists who reflect on the commons.

Going further :

Les communs urbains à Naples, Remix the Commons

La politique de la mairie de Naples en matière de communs, Benedetta Celati, Université Paris-Est Marne la Vallée et Université de Pise

Ressources gathered by researchers around the Asilo

Réappropriation des biens communs à Naples, Massa Critica (short film)

SynAthina, an initiative by the city of Athens with multiple controversies, in a context of widespread distrust of institutions

Julien Defait — Tue, 14 Apr 2020 10:39:16 +0000

In November 2019, we were in Athens for our third mobility. There, we meet the leaders of the SynAthina project, a platform to mobilize citizen initiatives in the city. Before going any further, let’s quickly describe the context. In Greek, “commons” is called koinos, and the concept was already in use during antiquity. But today, what do the Greek commons look like? We arrived in Athens on November 18 for this 4th trip organized within the framework of Enacting the Commons with this question in mind. Before answering, it is essential to measure the extreme character of Greek society, and this for several decades: a very fragmented territory and located on major seismic faults, young institutions weakened by corruption and the clientelism, a succession of crises ranging from the civil war to the dictatorship of the Colonels, and to close the picture, the sudden transition from economic prosperity to financial bankruptcy in 2008. One of the corollaries is the immense distrust of Greeks towards the institutions, be it the Greek State, the European Union, but also NGOs, various private foundations created by Greek shipowners, and to a large extent everything that looks like a descending power. During our stay, even the associative status appeared to be too institutional for some of our interlocutors!

SynAthina, a platform to mobilize citizen initiatives

Faced with the state’s inability to deal with the crisis and maintain effective public services, from 2012 many Greeks began to carry out acts of solidarity. Across the streets of Athens, people are organizing on a very small scale to clean the streets, distribute food to the poor, take over unoccupied places, etc. It was during this period that documentary filmmaker Amalia Zepou, during her investigations, forged a conviction: only combined would the action by civil society and the local public actor help to stem the crisis. She met the mayor of Athens, joined the municipal team and layed the foundations for SynAthina, a platform for mobilizing citizen initiatives which should allow collaboration between the city and civil society. Multiform, SynAthina (1) combines website and online mapping, fieldwork, networking and calls for projects to bring out new themes, for example encouraging residents to practice sports in public spaces.At first glance, it is difficult to assimilate SynAthina to traditional participation mechanisms – from the district council to the participative budget, to name just a few. The approach has a more systemic and more integrated dimension than the usual tools. Based on our interviews with the team of the online platform, our field visits and our meetings with residents affected by projects resulting therefrom, we have tried to draw some controversies.

An approach carried out on the outskirts of the municipality

Apart from the involvement of Amalia Zepou as deputy mayor, and the provision of premises by the municipality, most of it comes from outside the municipality: the 7 employees of SynAthina (which has no legal existence) are specially recruited contract workers, and 100% of the funding comes from a prize of € 1 million obtained in 2014 as part of an international competition launched by the American foundation Bloomberg Philanthropies. On the bright side, this positioning gives SynAthina a lot of leeway, and the provision of external funding creates enough resilience to overcome major changes without too much hassle. The downside is that the city services were not involved in the process. As a result, SynAthina teams find it difficult to coordinate with municipal teams (e.g. social mediators) – who themselves do not wish to do so from what we understand – even though one of the aims of SynAthina is to facilitate collaboration between social innovators and the services of the municipality.

So where does this withdrawal from the municipality come from? Because of the crisis, for ten years, the town hall has frozen the hiring of civil servants. City hall teams are aging, worn out by a lack of resources and marked by an extremely strong bureaucracy, which does not invite renewal and risk-taking. Elected officials certainly lack ambition as well. Add to that a general distrust of the administration.

Between valuing and appropriating citizen innovation

SynAthina’s platform lists nearly 500 initiatives from the field, offering them a privileged showcase, most of which coming from micro-structures with very limited means. The promise of the project is also to offer the opportunity to create virtuous links between the promoters of local projects, possible sponsors and the town hall. And thus, to bring about changes within the city administration. It is clear that the project could not achieve these results. Being polarized – and it’s not bad enough – on the collection phase of local initiatives. This is moreover incomplete, since there are almost as many initiators of initiatives (500) in the city who have not referenced themselves on the platform, in particular by suspicion, for fear that their image will be recovered by the city. The SynAthina project now seems to focus on the theme of welcoming migrants, through “Curing the Limbo”, a program which aims to implement new practices for the integration of refugees in the city of Athens and development of a sustainable action model. If the project succeeds, it is supposed to build a proposal for a new public policy, which can be applied to other European cities. This program was made possible thanks to foreign funds again, from the European Union this time.

The kiosk, a self-managed space, a mixed review

SynAthina’s ambition is also reflected in the provision of a kiosk available for the collectives and associations referenced by the platform, right in the city center. This building is intended to be self-managed, the reservation service is online, completely transparent, and the town hall does not interfere in its management. You just have to be registered on the platform to be able to access the shared calendar, you can see which collective / association has booked the place, make your own reservations, etc. A good intention in theory that collides with the reality on the ground. Tassos Smetopoulos, founder of the STEPS association which used to use this space, explained us that the water has been turned off for 3 months now and that no one comes to service the deteriorating kiosk. This self-management, pronounced as progress, is finally experienced as an abandonment for everyday users.

Kipseli Market, SynAthina’s success story ?

The SynAthina team invited us to visit the Kipseli market, which they present as one of their successes in social innovation. Kipseli Market is a large white building, freshly renovated, which structures the central square of the Kipseli district, a popular district of Athens. This space displays the ambition to support the local economy, to be at the service of the inhabitants of the district and to help animate the life of the Athenians. In a festive and family atmosphere, we find social entrepreneurs, associations, a service close to the city and a small farmer’s market on Wednesday evening. All with a trendy decor: large wooden tables, sofas, vegetation, etc.

But you need to go back to the history of the place to understand and qualify this success story. In 1990, the traditional market, which was installed on the square, closed and the building was abandoned. Squats and solidarity initiatives developped spontaneously there little by little and the place became a lively place of social bond. In 2012, the squat was closed (we do not know the reasons) and three years later, the building was renovated with European funds. In order to find a new functionality for the place, the town hall launched a call for projects via SynAthina to find a new function for this emblematic place, won by Impact Hub, a company that sets up and operates co-working spaces. This space aims to be a meeting place for citizen projects in Athens. Although the approach displays virtuous intentions going in the direction of the constitution of a real social innovation, the criticisms emanating from the residents and other actors we met are numerous and weaken the image of the initiative: the pre-existing actions do not seem to have been taken into account; the prices charged are higher than those of the surrounding shops, which contributes to the gentrification of the neighborhood; the project was not conceived with the inhabitants, Impact Hub has a mode of space management inspired closer to the practices of commerce and business than to the SSE. Note also that the town hall practiced a call for projects to renovate the place in 2015. Does this fairly basic and top-down administrative mechanism, allow to lay the foundations for the creation of a “community” around Kipseli Market?

Conclusions and openings

Finally, this experience teaches us that an administration may not be legitimate to gather, in its name, all the spontaneous initiatives of its territory, despite the substantial financial means to do so; moreover, if it does not do so closely with the promoters of local projects. Is there not a distinction between such an approach, and another which would consist in asking fundamental questions of social contract, the place and the role of the administration within the city? The first is a methodological, technical and service-based approach (a platform, communication, etc.), the second is a more theoretical and analytical approach, which is concerned with the social organization of the public service (who are public agents, what can we put in common between administration and citizens …?).

This experience also reinforces the idea that there is a clear difference between very ambitious declarations of intent – certainly necessary to obtain funding – and the reality on the ground, which requires a long time of appropriation and work in common with all the players.

More generally, we remember from our trip that the almost absence of public authorities does not mechanically cause perennial appropriation by citizens of initiatives of general interest or commons, moreover in a country affected by the financial crisis.

A “new municipalism” to fight against inequalities in London

Louise Guillot — Fri, 27 Mar 2020 17:30:10 +0000

Claiming a new municipalism inspired by Barcelona, the borough of Islington bordering the City district in London, pursues a policy of combating inequalities against the background of an inclusive economy. It is betting on an active remunicipalisation strategy, the return of public services and community wealth building to fight against the pockets of poverty, gentrification and transformation of the commercial fabric. This Anglo-Saxon municipalism in the heart of the capital of finance has something to arouse curiosity. During a seminar organized during our mobility in England, we met Asima Shaikh, Executive Memnber for inclusive economy and jobs in Islington. To find out more, here is a summary of our discussions.

Free return to the public services

The borough of Islington is the English municipality that has experienced the most radical return to public service movement. Between 2011 and 2019, the city repatriated £ 380 million worth of services, including housing management and repair, garbage collection, street cleaning, grounds maintenance, education management , concierge services, cleaning and temporary accommodation.
This policy was based on the first British fairness commission, established in 2010. The fairness commission brings together experts, organizations and residents to collect evidence, data and information on the negative effects of inequality and urban poverty and make recommendations to reduce them that can be implemented by key partners, (usually local authorities, private and public sector partners and sometimes the national government) to eliminate the structures that create and recreate inequality and poverty.
This first wave of return to public services was followed by tangible results: savings on the overall cost, and improved quality of services. It also made it possible to finance strong measures: free canteens for children, the implementation of the London Living wage for city officials.

“To go further and faster in making a difference for local people, we need a government that recognizes the transformational role proactive and progressive councils can have in helping to make our society a fairer place for all”.

Fighting gentrification with the inflection of the land market

The city of Islington then took a series of progressive and municipalist measures to combat gentrification, identified as a stimulator of inequalities on its territory.
Affordable workspace: Islington Affordable Workspace Strategy. As a planning authority, the city has developed a strategy of pre-emption and very low-rent (up to free) renting of commercial space. The provision is subject to a social contract between the borough, and managers mostly from the sectors of cooperatives, social enterprises and charitable organizations. They must provide and demonstrate that they provide a long-term benefit to local people and businesses. The example of Outlandish, a cooperative working on tech: the contract between them and the Borough stipulated that they had to take action to feminize the sector.
This is accompanied by a radical policy in favor of the development of affordable housing articulated around Section 106 of the urban planning document, establishing a logic of 50% affordable housing in each new construction. However, this positioning is particularly difficult to achieve given the fact that the Borough must rely exclusively on private promoters to achieve this objective, as evidenced by the legal battle waged by the Bourough against the developer Parkhrst Road in 2014. The latter had filed a complaint against Islington, which had opposed a housing project comprising only 10% social housing, arguing that the purchase price of the land did not allow it to build more affordable housing unless the operation no longer be profitable. The Borough finally won its lawsuit, the ruling announcing that profitability is not a valid criterion for breaking out of political objectives.

This decision reinforced Islington in its balance of power with real estate developers, and had a real impact on the general dynamics of the real estate market, influencing the rise in land prices.

Community wealth building & social care

In 2018, the Borough then wished to set up a community wealth building strategy. “After the experience of the trial, we integrated the idea that the public actor was a strategic actor, producer of change, by making strong economic choices. “

Community wealth building is not just an economic development activity as an economic agency could do, it is a strategic reorientation, which has forced Islington to review a set of public policies as a strategic lever for the issue of reduction of inequalities, in particular public purchasing, as a lever for investment in responsible players, and economic development as an investment policy in strategic sectors of activity (health) and development of missing links in the supply chain value. On this last point, the borough was inspired by the example of Barcelona on the social sector. The city had carried out an action to identify places in order to mesh the territory with micro-care nodes at the level of the districts.

What changes for the administration and elected officials?

The Council began this adventure with two difficult years, devoted to the elaboration of an economic development plan never applied. The Borough was then accompanied by the CLES and the New Economics Foundation, and undertook an evaluation of its practices. From there, it was able to better identify many management issues and HR needs (recruitment, training).
This work led to the recruitment of a “head of inclusive economy” (5/6 in Islington, 1/6 in CLES). Among the lessons learned from this work, the borough has changed its recruitment methods: on the basis of culture more than that of skills (in terms of economic development for example). During recruitment, the future agent commits to a “community based engagement”, which makes it possible to clarify the agent’s commitment to the development of the community, local businesses and residents.
On the side of elected officials, this approach does not meet with opposition, because Islington is a Labor majority with a real consensus around this strategy. The posture of the elected official may be a blind spot in the process, insofar as the city has not systematized the principle of “communty based engagement” for elected officials.

La Ferme du Chant des Cailles, a light on complex relationships between commoners and local public actors

enactingcom — Wed, 25 Mar 2020 10:38:24 +0000

La Ferme du Chant des Cailles is a sustainable food and participative urban farming project, born in 2012 in the heart of the Logis-Floréal garden cities in Watermael-Boitsfort in the Brussels agglomeration. It covers 3 hectares of building land, previously used for agricultural purposes. This land is made available by a social housing cooperative through a precarious lease which stipulates that the activities of the Farm must cease in the season if a construction project sees the light of day. This sword of Damocles on the project strongly influences its strategy of development and interconnection with the district. We visited the Farm while a research project on the complementarities between the agricultural and housing dimensions is still underway, and in the aftermath of regional elections which will bring about a possible renewal of the political choices relating to the project.

A project bringing ecological and social transformation, in symbiosis with its territory. Since its inception, the project has been thought out and carried out jointly by local residents and professional farmers (market gardeners, sheep breeders and producers of aromatic and medicinal plants). The different activities (professional activities of “community-supported agriculture” , but also community collective gardens and activities self-managed by and for the inhabitants of the neighborhood: parties, cooperative grocery, collective chicken coops …) have been grouped together since 2014 under the association “La Ferme du Chant des Cailles”. “The Chant des Cailles Cooperative”, which complements the ASBL, was created at the end of 2016 to consolidate the professional activities of the Chant des Cailles and raise the capital necessary to develop new projects. Today, it brings together 75 cooperators, who wished to invest in the production tool, and it is it that market gardeners and shepherds (self-employed) bill on the basis of a common hourly wage. La Ferme du Chant des Cailles does not only bring ecological transformation but also social transformation in a district whose history is marked by strong values of sharing (garden cities managed in a cooperative logic). However, these have gradually faded in favor of a more institutional and individualized approach to access to social housing, with a changing sociology (arrival of poorer inhabitants, immigrants, etc.). The project gradually acquired a very symbiotic dimension with its territory, each new activity enabling to reach new audiences.

Complex and evolving relationships over time with public actors. Interaction with public actors has taken and still takes multiple and complex forms, between power relations, negotiations and cooperation, the general position of the Farm reflecting that of several actors of the commons encountered during our trips: if the public actor must contribute to secure and perpetuate the project, in particular legally and in terms of infrastructure, it must not interfere in the management of the project and confiscate the citizens’ power to act and professionals involved in it. These relationships also vary according to the nature and interests of the different public actors concerned. It was with the Logis-Floréal social housing cooperative, which made the land available to the collective, that the oldest and most regular links were established. The need for dialogue and collaboration between the Farm and Logis-Floréal turned out to be all the stronger since the latter was far from imagining in 2012 the scale that the project was going to take. So the ASBL had to give it a place and reassure it that the project was open to all residents. It was under pressure from Logis-Floréal that the collective was forced (without really wanting to) to structure itself as an ASBL and to adopt common and written governance. The ASBL is today responsible for what is done on the ground and for the respect by each pole of activity of the agreement with the owner. Over the years, the Farm has also forged links with the Brussels-Capital Region (elected officials and cabinets in particular). This brings the program for the construction of 70 dwellings on the site relaunched in 2014 and put on hold in 2017 for 3 years, the time of the participative action research project SAULE (symbiosis urban agriculture housing environment), initiated by the Farm and funded by the regional organization for research and innovation Innoviris (therefore with funding from the Region). SAULE gathers around the Farm citizens, professionals of urban agriculture, researchers and urban planners to study the tensions, oppositions and solutions of articulation between the projects of agriculture and housing in urban environment, more particularly in Chant des Cailles. For the ASBL, this is an original means of influencing public decisions (“to offer tools to public operators to think of the city in a less compartmentalized way, with housing on the one hand and urban farming on the other ”), by activating the lever of research and social innovation. For the Government of the Brussels-Capital Region, it makes it possible to delay and perhaps avoid (for a time at least) going ahead in the face of a citizen and professional project that has gained momentum, notoriety and generated many positive impacts locally.

A project that acts as a citizen creativity laboratory for local administrations. It was the external pressure linked to the construction program that gradually led the project to pay increasing attention to social cohesion in the neighborhood, considered more important for the public actor as the feeder function of the Farm. For the non-profit organization, the strategy to “save the Farm” today consists of “making itself essential to the neighborhood”. This involves teaching users and cooperators to keep the site accessible and open to everyone, whether to take part in the project or to walk around and rest. The gates are never closed, the visits and educational workshops with schools in the neighborhood have multiplied, as well as the reception in professional centers of people with mental disabilities. In this logic of openness, the team of gardeners inhabitants obtained in 2014 a subsidy from the Municipality to develop a sustainable neighborhood pole and bring out the dynamics outside the plot: identify other spaces in the neighborhood to set up a collective garden, a compost or a neighborhood chicken coop, organize parties, in particular the Festival of 7 places, develop a cooperative grocery store which today has 400 members of the district… For the Municipality of Watermael-Boitsfort, in fact, the Farm today appears to be an exemplary experience and a laboratory for citizen creativity. It demonstrated to elected officials and the administration that it was possible for citizens to organize themselves, including in matters of governance (different activity poles, sovereign GAs, plenary meetings, etc.), and to carry out a project in autonomy. The land management, which manages certain collective gardens with a centralized registration system, is starting to wonder: how to create a more collective dynamic, with more inhabitants involved? The Municipality and the social housing cooperative are reviewing some of their practices in the light of the Chant des Cailles: management of green spaces (flower meadows, distribution of plants, etc.), citizen participation methods, etc. Collaborations have also been established with the Municipality in the area of circular economy (recovery of ground material on the site, etc.), on the initiative of the Farm. For Odile, alderman of Watermael-Boitsfort, active member of the Farm, the municipal budgets being very frozen. If the Municipality wants to implement more structured actions for the transition (repair cafes or resourceries for example), it is necessary to consider a new framework of alliance between municipal power and citizens (and possibly actors like the Logis Floréal), in which everyone can find a place and does not feel dispossessed. This is perhaps the last lesson of the project: joint management can also be a creator of political commitment. Three active members of the farm were elected in Watermael-Boitsfort in the municipal elections of 2018 …

Ecosse: se ré-approprier la terre, inventer de nouveaux modes de développement en commun… propriété collective, chartes communautaires, community wealth building- 25-28 mai 2020

Sylvine Bois-Choussy — Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:04:13 +0000

En mai prochain, Enacting the Commons s’embarque pour l’Ecosse, autours de trois sujets principaux: la propriété partagée, les chartes communautaires, le community wealth building.

La propriété foncière est une question sensible en Ecosse : forte concentration des terres entre les mains de quelques grands propriétaires, pourcentage très faible de foncier public, pression spéculative, évolution démographique des zones rurales, etc. Face à cela, il y existe un mouvement particulièrement dynamique de communautés locales s’organisant pour reprendre le contrôle et l’usage, collectif, de terres urbaines comme rurales pour des projets très divers : logement abordable, énergies renouvelables, entrepreunariat social, agriculture, sauvegarde de la biodiversité, etc. Il s’appuie sur des formes de capacitation, de gouvernance, des outils juridiques (“community right to buy“, le “Community assets transfer” , etc.) ou financiers, et un plaidoyer valorisant les bénéfices de l’usage en commun au regard d’enjeux climatiques, d’accès à sa propre culture, de justice foncière, etc.

L’Ecosse est également le berceau du mouvement de Community Chartering : En 2013, les habitants de Falkirk ont mis en place une charte communautaire pour lutter contre un projet d’extraction du méthane de houille. Les habitants se sont réunis pour dresser la liste de ce qu’ils estimaient important afin de préserver leur santé, leur mode de vie et le bien-être futur de leurs enfants et petits-enfants. Ils ont également imaginé à quoi ressemblerait une économie locale viable à long terme et ce qu’ils pourraient faire pour s’assurer que le monde naturel qui les entourait soit indemne. Cette charte a été l’un des outils pour faire reconnaître les droits de la communauté et la société civile locale. Depuis, un movement s’est structuré qui appuie l’autonomisation des communauté pour une une gestion environnementale responsable, teste de nouveaux modèles d’engagement communautaire, des approches de prise de décision collective, transparentes et inclusives sur un territoire, etc.

Enfin, l’Ecosse est une terre ou se développe de manière particulièrement ambitieuse l’approche du Community Wealth building qui cherche à repenser, de manière systémique, une économie locale ‘en commun’ au service de la justice sociale et de l’environnement. Le North Ayrshire sera ainsi bientôt la premiere collectivité en Écosse à adopter une approche de «développement de la richesse communautaire» à l’échelle régionale (plutôt aujourd’hui testé au niveau de de villes comme Preston)

> Déroulé :

La conférence de Community Land Scotland se déroulera les 22 et 23 mai. Les autres jours seront dédiés à des rencontres et à des visites de terrain

> Un peu de lectures :

Un peu plus sur Community ownership,

Scotland is undergoing a boom in community ownership:

Community ownership : L’exemple de l’Ile de Ulva (et le film, ici) ou la base aérienne de MacHrihanish ,

If our landscape truly belongs to us all, we must stop romanticising it– Alex Preston –

Sur les community Chartering :

L’exemple de Falkirk :

Qu’est ce que sont les chartes communautaires ?

Sur le CommunityWealth Building :

Mais au fait c’est quoi le community wealth building ?

Et en Ecosse c’est comment ?

L’expérience iconique de Preston

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiZb877MwDI

Re-municipalisation et “community organizing” en terre britanique – 24-27 février 2020

Louise Guillot — Wed, 05 Feb 2020 17:04:30 +0000

La Grande-Bretagne est souvent considérée comme l’une des terres d’origine des communs : le concept s’y structure notamment pendant la période médiévale autour des zones forestières et pâturages, encadré par la Carta Foresta, puis dans le cadre de luttes liées au mouvement des enclosures au XVIe siècle (qui supprime la possibilité de faire un usage collectif de ces grands espaces ruraux). Il trouve aujourd’hui une actualité particulièrement forte : la Grande-Bretagne demeure largement marquée par les privatisations de l’ère Thatcher puis de ses successeurs ainsi que par différentes formes de spéculation, avec une érosion forte des services comme des espaces publics. On voit pourtant poindre cette dernière décennie de nouvelles dynamiques, portées par des gouvernements locaux ‘progressistes’ (sic), qui construisent des stratégies pour favoriser l’émergence de communs sur leur territoires, questionnent les modèles économiques ‘extractifs’, ré-inventent des services publics ‘en commun’… Du « community wealth building » au « public ownership », en passant par les partenariats publics-communs, en allant peut être vers un nouvel âge des pouvoirs locaux ?
Par ailleurs, la Grande-Bretagne est également un terreau emblématique de formes d’activisme, d’auto-organisation et de mobilisations citoyennes, de community organising, particulièrement inspirants. Comment ces dynamiques nourrissent-elles des formes de réappropriation de l’espace et de l’action publique?
Ce sont toutes ces thématiques que nous avons voulu explorer pour notre sixième voyage dans le cadre du programme « Enacting the Commons ».

Pour en savoir plus sur nos rencontres lors du voyage, voici notre Journal de bord Angleterre.

Emergence d’un mouvement de re-municipalisation des services publics

Inspiré de villes comme Barcelone, un mouvement municipaliste se structure à travers le pays afin de reconstruire des services publics sur la base d’un « public ownership ». Ancré au sein de Labour, il semble néanmoins transcender peu à peu les clivages politiques. Quelles sont pour cela les stratégies de villes, des élus et des administrations? ? Comment s’organisent les communautés localement ? Quelles formes de partenariats publics-communs peuvent en découler ? Nous traiterons ces questions en croisant l’expérience d’administrations de différents quartiers Londoniens engagés dans de telles démarches, de chercheurs – David Hall, Hilary Wainwright et Bertie Russell, contributeurs au Transnational Institute, Matthew Laurence de Common Wealth, ou encore de Cat Hobbs qui porte la campagne “We own it”. L’objectif sera de comprendre ce qui se joue en Grande-Bretagne en matière de public ownership, d’aborder et d’échanger autour d’exemples locaux de re-municipalisation et d’identifier les stratégies pour faire levier au niveau local, translocal ou national.

L’approche du community wealth building

Comment penser une économie territoriale ‘en commun’, c’est-à-dire réorganiser l’économie localement afin que la richesse n’en soit pas extraite mais demeure et circule au sein de la communauté ? Parmi les stratégies pour mettre en œuvre cette approche, des villes comme Manchester, Oldham, Preston, ou encore le quartier de Islington à Londres, expérimentent le développement de modes de propriété hybrides, les banques communautaires, de nouvelles formes de marchés publics, etc. De manière générale, on note un rejet croissant de la marchandisation des services essentiels. L’alternative n’est pas forcément la nationalisation ou municipalisation, et les partenariats publics-communs se présentent comme une troisième voie, porteuse de transformations sociales radicales.
La ville de Preston est emblématique de ce mouvement. Anciennement industrielle et ayant souffert de fortes coupes budgétaires, cette ville proche de Manchester a su se réinventer sur un modèle vertueux reposant sur la coopération. Partant d’un ras-le-bol des habitants de se voir imposer des décisions prises à des centaines de kilomètres de là, l’accent a été porté sur la mise en pouvoir des habitants et sur le maintien des dépenses au service de l’économie locale. La ville a ainsi lancé un programme pour incuber des coopératives auto-gérées par les travailleurs et expérimente la mise en place d’une banque communautaire. Ces réflexions ont été menées avec l’aide du CLES (Centre for Local Economic Strategies), qui expérimente localement sur des nouveaux modèles économiques et services publics, ou encore en lien avec le collectif/think tank Common Wealth.

Community organizing

Une autre piste d’entrée vers les communs que nous avons identifiée en Grande-Bretagne comme structurante est celle du « community organizing ». Comment les communautés s’organisent localement pour repenser la ville ? Quels rapports de force/relations existent-ils entre activisme et acteur public ? On a vu ces dernières décennies se développer la notion de « Neighbourhood planning », la planification de voisinage qui permet aux communautés de disposer d’un ensemble d’outils pour s’assurer d’avoir une voix dans les projets locaux de développement. Cette notion a été introduite par le Localism Act de 2011 pour la décentralisation et la montée en compétence des autorités locales sur leur territoire. Même s’il a été critiqué, il témoigne d’une volonté d’évolution vers plus de gouvernance locale. Il instaure entre autres un certain nombre de droits communautaires permettant aux citoyens d’organiser la vie locale comme le community right to build/to reclaim land/to challenge.Autour de ces questions, nous échangerons avec les agents du quartier de Camden et les acteurs de MAKE, un espace de jardin dédié à la collaboration et à l’innovation sociale afin de croiser nos expériences sur l’ancrage des partenariats au sein de la communauté.
Des collectifs appuient ces dynamiques et les poussent encore plus loin. Public works, par exemple, s’intéresse plus spécifiquement à l’espace public et Participatory City accompagne les projets locaux de territoire à travers le programme Every One Every Day, mené à Barking & Dagenham, en périphérie de Londres.

Quelques liens inspirants :

La Cascina Roccafranca, an atypical neighborhood house

Louise Guillot — Tue, 21 Jan 2020 17:52:07 +0000

On the occasion of our first mobility trip in northern Italy in February 2019, we visited the Cascina Roccafranca, one of the 18 neighborhood houses in the city of Turin, which has existed since 2007. There is a nursery, a children’s lounge female reading, English lessons for 2-3 year olds, cafeteria, assistance center… For the year 2019, the Cascina hosted 250 different activities, all carried out by local players (associations, informal groups, individuals), and just over 200 events (birthdays, retirement parties, children’s parties, etc.)

Cascina Roccafranca could be roughly defined as a neighborhood socio-cultural center, but it is distinguished by a number of characteristics – its history, its state of mind, its functions, its management model, its relationships with the neighborhood, etc.- which make it unique. Back on the distinctive elements of this device.

Neighborhood houses to stimulate active citizenship

La Cascina Roccafranca is part of the Neighborhood Houses, a Turinese device close to a socio-cultural center intended to host the most diverse educational, cultural and sporting activities, carried out by local players.

Set up at the end of the 2000s, these neighborhood houses are places thought of as “empty boxes”: their function is to bring together, create socializations, and allow people, ideas and projects to develop. Local associations, community groups, informal groups, families are invited to take advantage of the space to support their initiatives. The programming of the place is therefore very bottom-up, and comes only from the inhabitants, responsible in turn for the team to guarantee a good balance between the public. It is a concrete application of the principle of active citizenship to socio-cultural action and social cohesion: here the users of the places are not simply the beneficiaries of a service, but they are the main actors of what is going on in the neighborhood house.

The mechanism seems to appeal to residents, as evidenced by some 3,500 visits per week, the 80 associations and informal partner groups and the forty or so volunteers who work within the structure.

In a second step, once the appropriation of the inhabitants had been widely demonstrated, certain public services were also added to the site – social services, help desks. The community center has also played a structuring role in the establishment of collaboration pacts in Turin, playing the role of intermediary between citizens and city services.

A public-citizen co-porting registered in the DNA of the project

One of the challenges of neighborhood houses is therefore the involvement and appropriation of this tool by residents and local actors already active in the neighborhood. The mixed public-citizen dimension of the place is inscribed in the genesis, in the assembly and in the operating mode of the Cascina.

Born from a European project, La Cascina, aimed to regenerate a neighborhood by involving local stakeholders and residents. Local residents and stakeholders were involved from the outset of the project through a participatory design process.

This phase resulted in the creation of an atypical structure testifying to the ambition displayed by the parties in terms of co-sponsorship: an atypical foundation in participation. Unlike conventional foundations (a subject that carries goods), there are two types of members here. On the one hand, the founder – the municipality of Turin – who brings the building, the staff and some services to the foundation, is a valued contribution as material goods. On the other, the participating members – nearly 35 associations – who bring to the foundation ideas, projects, their availability, … and whose contribution is valued as intangible contributions. They are gathered in the “college of participants” and participate in the directive of the foundation. The board of directors consists of 5 people, including 3 nominated by the city of Turin and 2 from the college of participants.

This co-sponsorship is also found in the physiognomy of the management team of the neighborhood house, which is mixed between city officials seconded (for the pure management trades) and local players in the field (for animation) , and everyone has a voice on the strategic choices of the neighborhood house.

The operation in “small local businesses” includes a strong radical change of public officials, who manage to change posture through contact with other non-civil servant members of the team, and the deinstitutionalized environment of the place.

Sustain the model

However, the sustainability of this type of project raises questions. La Cascina is funded at 65% by subsidies and self-financing (lease to restaurants, rentals to associations that carry paid activities, rentals to private actors (birthdays …), donations) and 35% from a private foundation (San Paolo foundation). The latter funding is the result of an agreement between the city of Turin and the San Paolo foundation for all neighborhood houses, facilitated by the fact that the banks have a form of initiative sponsorship obligation at local level .

But the assembly testifies to a relative financial disengagement of the public actor: apart from the provision of half of the team, and the provision of the place, the city does not pay any direct money for the operation, and the trend is to encourage the construction of an autonomous economic model. The question arises of the maintenance of free education and access to activities in this context.

On the political level, this model also presents weaknesses: intrinsically dependent on the provision of the place by the City, there is a possibility that everything will stop in the event of a change of political edge. Even if today this risk is more theoretical than real: the Cascina Roccafranca is integrated into the local landscape and adopted by the community, and furthermore recognized as a local public facility such as a library, it is therefore unlikely that a municipal team will take the risk of closing it.

By Louise Guillot

Thanks to Renato Bergamin, director of Cacsina Roccafranca, for his testimony.

Communs et comptabilité : Conversation avec Michel Bauwens

Sylvine Bois-Choussy — Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:02:19 +0000

Plus que jamais, les organisations en quête de sens cherchent à renouveler leurs pratiques afin de faire coïncider le fond avec la forme de leur projet. Changer de pratiques implique de changer les outils supportant l’activité. Quoi de mieux que commencer par changer notre logiciel commun : la comptabilité ? En début de mois, nous organisions une discussion avec Michel Bauwens autour de la comptabilité et des communs, suite au rapport « La comptabilité P2P pour la survie de la planète », co-écrit avec Alexis Pazaitis sous l’égide de la P2P Foundation en septembre 2019.

Pourquoi s’intéresser à la comptabilité ? Comment les administrations peuvent-elles s’emparer de ces sujets ? Quels liens avec la notion d’intérêt général ?

La comptabilité, véhicule d’une certaine vision du monde

La comptabilité ne consiste pas simplement en un enregistrement neutre des activités d’une structure. La manière dont on prend en compte ces chiffres découle d’un processus continu depuis les prémisses de la comptabilité qui se base sur des présupposés philosophiques forts. La comptabilité en partie double, par exemple, n’a pas toujours existé et traduit la distinction entre les objets que l’on peut exploiter, contrôler et utiliser (actif) et les sujets, dignes de respect et de droits (passif). On peut facilement imaginer ce que cela peut avoir comme incidence sur le rapport qu’entretiennent les organisations avec les différentes formes du vivant et comment cela a pu mener aux diverses crises sociales et environnementales.

De plus, on ne peut y reconnaître que certaines activités qui ont une valeur marchande. Or, beaucoup d’activités dans le secteur des communs ne sont pourtant pas classifiables comme marchandes alors qu’elles contribuent pleinement à la valeur des projets communs.

De la compétition à la collaboration comme nouveau paradigme

Le rapport présente ensuite trois grandes approches pour repenser la comptabilité ; la comptabilité contributive, la comptabilité REA, et les comptabilités thermodynamiques.

Michel Bauwens propose tout d’abord d’imaginer la comptabilité de manière complètement collaborative, via un outil commun qui pourrait se matérialiser par la blockchain/holochain. Ainsi, les participants de ces écosystèmes collaboratifs seraient en mesure voir ce que les autres apportent à la contribution. Dans le futur, si on veut engranger une économie circulaire, il faut partager et cela passe notamment par un partage d’information. Cette vision est déjà très marquée dans l’open source. C’est cette approche qui est désignée par la comptabilité contributive.

Le projet le plus développé dans ce sens est le projet de Sensorica (au Canada). Ils ont monté un projet qui aurait permis de financer un réseau de fablabs selon les modalités de la comptabilité contributive. Cela fonctionne par projet et l’on peut enregistrer le temps, le prêt d’outils… Un système de vérification par les pairs a été mis en place. On reçoit des points Karma et quand des financements viennent de l’extérieur, on redistribue selon les points karmiques. Le projet n’a pas encore abouti car ils n’ont pas réussi à convaincre mais ont fait tout le travail préparatoire.

La deuxième couche de collaboration, REA accounting (Ressources, Événements, Agents), a vocation à dépasser la comptabilité classique à double entrée qui ne regarde qu’une entité (ce qui rentre, ce qui sort, ce que l’on peut retenir après). Il n’y a pas de vision écosystémique et on ne voit pas tout ce qui se passe à l’extérieur.

L’objectif est de mettre en lumière la distinction entre le mode extractif et génératif. Un agriculteur qui épuise ses sols est dans une logique extractive, plutôt destructrice alors que dans une logique générative, l’agriculteur va enrichir ses sols et en prendre soin, par exemple. Sur les documents comptables classiques, cela ne pourra apparaître nulle part. Cet aveuglement de la comptabilité aux externalités est pour les auteurs la principale faiblesse du système politico-économique actuel, qui laisse les entreprises profiter largement de cet écart entre réalité et comptabilité, sans payer pour les dommages causés en chemin. Cette distinction peut se faire aussi pour la monnaie. Certains parlent de monnaie froide (extractive, dominante, sans soucis d’équité) et monnaie chaude (locale, qui veut prendre en compte plus que la valeur marchande).

Dans ce sens, le centre culturel MACAO à Milan expérimente depuis 2015 une cryptomonnaie locale : le CommonCoin, afin de créer une micro-économie circulaire au sein de la communauté (comportant une centaine de membres). Les salariés sont payés dans cette monnaie, complétée d’un revenu mensuel de base en euros. En collaboration avec d’autres acteurs comme Faircoop et Dyne.org, ils lancent un projet d’envergure en Europe ; la Banque des Communs, une coopérative ayant pour mission de fournir des outils financiers coopératifs afin de soutenir des projets économiques alternatifs et divers mouvements sociaux.

Finalement, la troisième « famille » de comptabilités alternatives seraient les comptabilités thermodynamiques, qui visent à internaliser les externalités.

A titre d’exemple, nous pouvons citer le travail de l’association autrichienne Economy for the Common Good, qui a développé ces dernières années un « Common Good Balance Sheet » (bilan de bien commun). Ce bilan se caractérise par l’existence d’une matrice avec un système de points positifs et négatifs. On a donc 17 clusters d’impacts positifs ou négatifs. 2000 entreprises et coopératives l’utilisent. Cela signifie qu’on change les incitations. L’activité sera récompensée par un impact positif sur la société. Cette sorte de comptabilité n’est pas forcément interne. Elle n’est pas opérationnelle pour le travail tous les jours (on peut la faire tous les 6 mois, années). Certaines collectivités ont déjà pris le pas.

Un autre modèle actuellement en phase d’expérimentation est celui de CARE (Comptabilité Adaptée au Renouvellement de l’Environnement). Il s’agit d’une comptabilité multi-capitaliste, donc qui prend en compte non seulement un capital économique mais aussi un capital social et un capital environnemental dans le calcul du profit. L’idée est de dire que l’on peut être sanctionné pour du mismanagement financier mais pas si on provoque des externalités écologiques ou sociales négatives. On cherche alors par cette méthode à internaliser les externalités.

Comptabilité contributive, REA Accounting, comptabilité thermodynamique…le rêve serait de prendre le meilleur des trois. Il existe aujourd’hui de nombreux prototypes mais qui demeurent fragmentés.

Comment les administrations peuvent se saisir de ces questions ?

Lors de notre échange, Michel Bauwens suggère dans un premier temps de créer des coopératives de protocole dont l’objectif serait de créer un fonds de logiciels qui permettent à toutes les villes participantes de créer de l’habitat partagé, de la mobilité partagée, des coopératives d’énergie etc… afin de centraliser et utiliser les mêmes bases technologiques (ce qui fait d’ailleurs la force de plateformes comme Airbnb et Uber). L’infrastructure collective permettrait de faciliter le développement de ces projets et ainsi de soutenir des entités génératives.

De la notion d’intérêt général

IBEST. En partant du constat de l’incapacité de ces indicateurs à rendre compte du bien-être commun pour la seule obsession de la performance, la métropole de Grenoble a lancé un programme de recherche sur la création de nouveaux indicateurs de richesse : les indicateurs de bien-être soutenable territorialisés (IBEST). Ce bien-être soutenable s’appréhende alors selon huit axes :

Le travail et l’emploi
L’affirmation et l’engagement
La démocratie et le « vivre-ensemble »
Le temps et le rythme de vie
L’accès aux besoins fondamentaux
L’accès et d’utilisation des services publics
La santé
L’environnement naturel

Ces axes doivent permettre d’envisager l’action de manière plus transversale et de s’affranchir de la logique de concurrence à tout prix, afin de mieux servir l’intérêt général.

En Seine Saint-Denis, le projet de « Territoire Apprenant Contributif » mené par Plaine Commune s’intéresse aussi de près à ces problématiques en expérimentant sur l’économie contributive, visant notamment à développer les savoirs et capacités Cela passe par la construction de nouveaux indicateurs d’impact capables de capter les apports de cette nouvelle économie au bien-commun.

Les achats publics

Un autre angle d’attaque pour les collectivités serait de réfléchir sur de nouveaux moyens de financement qui utilisent ces comptabilités génératives pour l’achat public. Dans cette optique, Regen Network propose une méthode de « social procurement », prototypée sur le secteur agricole, intégrant des critères éthiques dans l’achat public (écologique, bio, local et équitable). Ce modèle consiste en la création d’un “social state protocol” où l’on négocie des tokens pour les externalités positives provoquées afin de favoriser une économie circulaire.

Finalement, afin d’institutionnaliser ces nouvelles pratiques, l’approche expérimentale sur les nouveaux modes de comptabilité doit nécessairement s’accompagner d’une refonte du droit en la matière.

Vous pouvez retrouver ci-dessous la vidéo de cette conversation !

Pour aller plus loin :

Pour télécharger le rapport, c’est ici

Pour aller plus loin sur ces sujets de comptabilité, visionnez l’intervention de Alexandre Rambaud « Pour une comptabilité écologique: le modèle CARE (Comprehensive Accounting in Respect of Ecology) »dans le cadre des entretiens du nouveau monde industriel 2019

Amsterdam, from a Commons City to a Fearless City ? 9-12 dec 2019

enactingcom — Fri, 15 Nov 2019 14:13:10 +0000

The Enacting the Commons consortium is heading north for its fifth expedition. After two days of discussions at the Roumics (in Lille), we are heading to the Netherlands, stopping at Amsterdam, a pioneering city in the field of commons.

Download here the Logbook of this trip to Amsterdam

How does the City of Amsterdam and the new majority elected in 2018 grasp the issue of the commons? For what reasons and by what means? How do commons question the dynamics of Amsterdam’s Sharing City?

Since 2015, the City of Amsterdam has seized the collaborative economy as a lever to develop its territory. This sector was seen as a lever to meet local challenges of mobility, housing, etc. From supporting local start-ups to negotiating with international platforms, the City has been proactive in this area. Amsterdam being a city “at the cutting edge of innovation”, it is also often cited as an example of “Smart City”. In parallel with this dynamic, some actors such as the Commons Network are mobilizing to defend and promote the place of the commons in the territory’s development strategy. Local elected officials are also increasingly attentive to these topics and have shown interest in exchanging good practices and sharing approaches with French cities. Moreover, a week before our arrival will be held in Amsterdam an international conference “Future is Public, Democratic Ownership of the Economy”, in connection with the Fearless Cities movement (international network of cities and movements with a municipalist perspective initiated by the city of Barcelona). The commons, the cooperative economy, the welcoming of refugees and even the right to the city will be at the heart of discussions!

Beyond city-led initiatives, civil society has not been outdone. There are a host of very different citizens’ initiatives in Amsterdam. The Commons Networks association carried out a census of “commons” in the Netherlands via the De Meent platform. This work aims to build a network between commoners and to bring out a political program for the movement of commons at the national level, through the organization of a national assembly of commons. They will therefore be able to enlighten us on the Dutch context around the commons and introduce some interesting initiatives in Amsterdam such as VokomoKum, a collective organized around food, or a new cooperative housing project De Nieuwe Meent. The question of housing is particularly interesting in Amsterdam, because of the large squat movement which had more than 20,000 members in the 1980s. How did the public actor respond to this squat movement? How has this influenced its housing policy (especially on social housing)? And more generally, how do these “commons” initiatives influence the city of Amsterdam’s public policies?

Finally, the cooperative movement seems particularly interesting to question because of its scope, its diversity (energy, housing, health, …) but also its desire to structure itself as a network. Jurgen van der Heijden, who actively participates in the network of cooperatives at the national level, invites us to meet both energy cooperatives and care cooperatives to discuss their governance and their link with public actors in their respective fields. In a second step, we can all explore together the question of the cooperative model: what is the importance of the cooperative movement in Amsterdam? What is their positioning towards the public actor? To what extent is it possible, and beneficial, to try to make links between cooperatives that are interested in different subjects? Like the Hart voor of K-buurt, a neighborhood organization that is trying to build an ecosystem of cooperatives via, what they call a “cooperative neighborhood network”.

Find here the Program of this trip to Amsterdam