Freerange Vol.7: The Commons

8/13/2019 Freerange Vol.7: The Commons

1/86

Freerange Vol.7:The

Commons


2/86


3/86

Freerange Vol.7:

The Commons

The law locks up the man or womanWho steals the goose from off the common

But leaves the greater villain loose

Who steals the common from off the goose.The law demands that we atone

When we take things we do not ownBut leaves the lords and ladies ne

Who take things that are yours and mine.

The poor and wretched dont escape

If they conspire the law to break;This must be so but they endureThose who conspire to make the law.

The law locks up the man or womanWho steals the goose from off the common

And geese will still a common lackTill they go and steal it back.

(UNKNOWN AUTHOR)

This folk poem (a common in itself) dates to seven-teenth century England and was a protest directedat the privatisation of common land on a nation-wide scale known as the Enclosure Movement.


4/86

Published by Freerange PressAotearoa, Atlantis, Australia.

Co-edited by Jessie Moss and Joseph Cederwall

Concept development and curation assistanceTim Gregory

Chief EggBarnaby Bennett

DesignBeba McLean and Rebecca Walthall

IllustrationRebecca Walthall

Editorial adviserEmma Johnson

The editors would like to thank all those who have provided support,assistance or contributions during this creative process.Also available as a download on our website:

WWW.PROJECTFREERANGE.COM

Published October 2013ISBN 9780473262594ISBN 9780473262600ISSN 1179-8106 (Print)ISSN 1179-8114 (Online)

Freerange Vol. 7 by Freerange Cooperative is licensed under a Creative CommonsAttribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives Licence. This licence allows users to sharethe journal or articles for non-commercial purposes, so long as the article is reproducedin the whole without changes, and the original authorship is acknowledged. This doesnot mean that you can ignore the original copyright of the contributors in their workas the authors moral rights are in no way affected by these licence terms.

For more information on these rights please go to this address:www.creativecommons.org or contact us for details.


5/86

Introduction

The commons as atransformative visionDAVID BOLLIER & SILKE HELFRICH

Of we within margins:A performance of edgeHANNAH HOPEWELL

How to escape the infernoLELAND MASCHMEYER

Reclaiming the urbancommons JOHN ALLAN

Drug wars: the battle for thecommons in globalpharmaceuticals THOMAS OWEN

Putting Maori society, historyand culture on the mapO. RIPEKA MERCIER

An interview withAnne Salmond JOSEPH CEDERWALL

Cheap and Choice Award Creative Commons

The commons infographicchart

Popular food activism andcommons possibilitiesANDREA BROWER

Early childhood educationcommons: A New Zealandreality? JESSIE MOSS

Christiania: Reclaiming theright to the city JOESEPH CEDERWALL

12 Essays on the commonsEDITED BY LELAND MASCHMEYER

The commons that cant benamed | The Christchurch thatcan be named BARNABY BENNETT

Examples of the commons

A case for the commonsWILLIAM SHANNON

Freeranger of the edition Elinor Ostram JOSEPH CEDERWALL

46

10

12

18

22

28

32

37

38

40

46

50

59

72

7576

78

Contents

-


6/86

The sustainability of the commons de-mands a dedication to co-operation,equitable use, participatory democracyand sustainability. It is apparent thatthe failing political and economic sys-tems we have inherited are inadequateto meet these demands. Over the latterpart of the preceding century the com-mons sector has been marginalised bythe collusion of the public and privatesectors in what has been described bycommons academic David Bollier as amarket-state duopoly. The prevailingparadigm under this hegemonic globalorder is one of unrestrained and unreg-ulated growth, individualism, arti cial-

ly created scarcity and competition forcommon resources.

The vast majority of the global popu-lation has been utterly disenfranchisedby this system which fails to deliverthe essential needs of humanity andfails to involve us in participatory de-cision making about our collective re-sources and futures. This increasinglyimbalanced system has paved the wayfor division, partition and enclosureof our public spaces and our culturaland physical resources at alarming andunprecedented rates. Indigenous andimpoverished communities in particu-lar have been unable to resist unreg-ulated land grabbing and systematicplunder of their natural resources for

private pro t.

Freerange Vol.7: The Commons

As a species we have evolved an innateability to cooperate which has allowedus to collectively realise many admi-rable cultural and scienti c achieve-ments. Never before in our history havewe been so connected by technology,yet simultaneously we are dangerouslydisconnected from our inherent com-monality and the commons. Many ci-vilisations and empires no longer existdue to their failure to sustainably man-age their common resources. Howeveras a highly interconnected globalisedsociety the collapse we face is globalin scale and presents a new and terri-fying prospect.

The commons can be de ned as allthat we share or those resources(physical, intellectual and cultural)whether nite or in nite and whethercurrently in existence or not that areshared and managed collectively bya community. Globally, more than 2.5billion people depend directly on nat-ural common resources such as forests,rivers, wetlands and pastures for theirlivelihoods. However, these naturalcommons also provide wide-rangingcontributions which indirectly main-tain ecological and economic balancefor us all. Cultural and intellectual re-sources such as the internet are alsocommons which provide hugely im-portant services to our societies.

4 | FREERANGE VOL.7: THE COMMONS


7/86

INTRODUCTION | 5

There are, however, promising signs allaround us of a ourishing and resur-gent commons sector. Resistance toappropriation of public space has beena central theme of the powerful social

movements to have emerged in thisnew millennium. It was no accidentthat the loss of Gezi Park to privatedevelopment was the spark that ig-nited latent discontent Turkey in 2013.Similarly, the Arab Spring, Occupy, LosIndignados and the global indigenousIdle No More movements all tap intoour collective feeling of lack of partici-pation in decisions over common spaceand resources. The commons approachdoes not provide easy answers or quick

xes to the systemic problems we facebut it will play a huge part in the re-shaping of our planet along more equi-table and sustainable lines.

The emergent commons sector offersa truly free and open market running

in parallel to and in some instanceseven supplanting the growth basedcapitalist economy. It utilises innova-tions such as open source licensingand technology, a sharing/gift econ-omy and cooperative and communitycontrolled production and enterprise.The new indicators of progress in thissystem are human based rather than

nancial and it will involve a gradualtransfer from the private and public tocommunity ownership of resources.

The role of government needs to shiftfrom centralised decision making orprivatisation to one that would facil-itate the ability of local communitiesto govern their own common resourc-es. This approach will require active

participation of communities in gov-ernance and development of their re-sources. It encourages higher levels ofcooperation, innovation and creativity

by encouraging collaboration and com-munication between peers in loosely

and uidly organised networks andgives the freedom and the structureswe need to work together.

The commons approach is perhaps ourbest hope as we pull our heads out ofthe sand and face up to the challeng-es of fundamentally redesigning oursociety with people and the planet asthe primary considerations. This jour-nal is a celebration of the commonsand aims to give a broad overview ofthe theme as well as highlighting in-spirational visions of a more commonsbased future. Freerange 7 includes in-depth research into the areas of intel-lectual property rights, our food systemand the re-claiming of cultural spacethrough digital mapping. Some per-

sonal insights are offered into the com-mons perspective of post-earthquakeChristchurch and early childhood ed-ucation. This edition also includesdiscussions of urban public space, theemerging peer to peer economy andparticipatory decision making along-side more artistic treatments of thetheme of the commons through poetryand imagery.

The information presented here is farfrom comprehensive, however thoseinspired to learn more are encouragedto explore the further readings sug-gested herein.

JOSEPH CEDERWALL & JESSIE MOSS


8/86

The commons asa transformativevision

That is the message of various socialcon icts all over the world of theSpanish Indignados and the Occupymovement, and of countless social in-novators on the Internet. People wantto emancipate themselves not justfrom poverty and shrinking opportuni-ties, but from governance systems thatdo not allow them meaningful voiceand responsibility.

Beyond the market and stateFor generations, the state and mar-ket have developed a close, symbioticrelationship, to the extent of forgingwhat might be called the market/state

duopoly. Both are deeply committed toa shared vision of technological prog-ress and market competition, enframed

Excerpt from the introduction to THE WEALTH OF THE COMMONS: A WORLD BEYOND MARKET &STATE. David Bollier & Silke Helfrich. Levellers Press, Massachusetts 2012

It has become increasingly clear that we are poised between an old worldthat no longer works and a new one struggling to be born. Surrounded byan archaic order of centralized hierarchies on the one hand and predatorymarkets on the other, presided over by a state committed to planet-destroying economic growth, people around the world are searching foralternatives.

in a liberal, nominally democratic pol-ity that revolves around individualfreedom and rights. Market and statecollaborate intimately and togetherhave constructed an integrated world-view a political philosophy and cul-tural epistemology, in fact with eachplaying complementary roles to enacttheir shared utopian ideals of endlessgrowth and consumer satisfaction.

The presumption that the state canand will intervene to represent theinterests of citizens is no longer cred-ible. Unable to govern for the longterm, captured by commercial interests

and hobbled by stodgy bureaucraticstructures in an age of nimble elec-tronic networks, the state is arguably



9/86

incapable of meeting the needs ofcitizens as a whole. The inescapableconclusion is that the mechanisms andprocesses of representative democracyare no longer a credible vehicle for thechange we need. Conventional politi-cal discourse, itself an aging artifact ofanother era, is incapable of naming ourproblems, imagining alternatives andreforming itself.

This, truly, is why the commons hassuch a potentially transformative roleto play. It is a discourse that tran-scends and remakes the categories ofthe prevailing political and economicorder. It provides us with a new social-ly constructed order of experience, anelemental political worldview and a

persuasive grand narrative. The com-mons identi es the relationships thatshould matter and sets forth a differ-ent operational logic. It validates newschemes of human relations, produc-tion and governance one might callit commonance, or the governance ofthe commons.

The commons provides us with the abil-ity to name and then help constitute anew order. We need a new languagethat does not insidiously replicate themisleading ctions of the old order for example, that market growth willeventually solve our social ills or thatregulation will curb the worlds pro-liferating ecological harms. We needa new discourse and new social prac-

tices that assert a new grand narrative,a different constellation of operatingprinciples and a more effective orderof governance. Seeking a discourse of

this sort is not a fanciful whim. It is anabsolute necessity. And, in fact, thereis no other way to bring about a neworder. Words actually shape the world.

By using a new language, the languageof the commons, we immediately beginto create a new culture. We can asserta new order of resource stewardship,right livelihood, social priorities andcollective enterprise.

The transformational language ofthe commonsThis new language situates us as in-teractive agents of larger collectivi-ties. Our participation in these largerwholes (local communities, online af-

nity groups, intergenerational tra-ditions) does not eradicate our indi-viduality, but it certainly shapes ourpreferences, outlooks, values and be-haviors: who we are. A key revelationof the commons way of thinking is that

we humans are not in fact isolated, at-omistic individuals. We are not amoe-bas with no human agency except he-donistic utility preferences expressedin the marketplace.

No: We are commoners creative, dis-tinctive individuals inscribed withinlarger wholes. We may have many un-attractive human traits fueled by indi-vidual fears and ego, but we are alsocreatures entirely capable of self-orga-nization and cooperation; with a con-cern for fairness and social justice; andwilling to make sacri ces for the largergood and future generations.

The commons identies the

relationships that shouldmatter and sets forth a differentoperational logic.

THE COMMONS AS A TRANSFORMATIVE VISION | 7


10/86

The commons helps us recognize, elic-it and strengthen these propensities. Itchallenges us to transcend the obso-lete dualisms and mechanistic mind-

sets. It asks us to think about the worldin more organic, holistic and long-termways. We see that my personal unfold-ing depends upon the unfolding ofothers, and theirs upon mine. We seethat we mutually affect and help eachother as part of a larger, holistic socialorganism. Complexity theory has iden-ti ed simple principles that govern thecoevolution of species in complex eco-systems. The commons takes such les-sons to heart and asserts that we hu-mans co-evolve with and co-produceeach other. We do not exist in grandisolation from our fellow human be-ings and nature. The myth of the self-made man that market culture cele-brates is absurd a self-congratulatorydelusion that denies the critical role of

family, community, networks, institu-tions and nature in making our world.

The commons as a generativeparadigmA major point of the commons (dis-course), then, is to help us get outsideof the dominant discourse of the mar-ket economy and help us represent dif-ferent, more wholesome ways of being.It allows us to more clearly identifythe value of inalienability protec-tion against the marketization of ev-erything. Relationships with nature arenot required to be economic, extractiveand exploitative; they can be construc-tive and harmonious. For people of theglobal South, for whom the commonstends to be more of a lived, everyday

reality than a metaphor, the languageof the commons is the basis for a newvision of development.

The commons can play this role be-

cause it describes a powerful valueproposition that market economicsignores. Historically, the commons hasoften been regarded as a wasteland,a res nullius, a place having no own-er and no value. Notwithstanding thelong-standing smear of the commonsas a tragedy, the commons, properlyunderstood, is in fact highly generative.It creates enormous stores of value.The problem is that this value cannotsimply be collapsed into a single scaleof commensurable, tradeable value i.e., price and it occurs through pro-cesses that are too subtle, qualitativeand long-term for the markets manda-rins to measure. The commons tends toexpress its bounty through living owsof social and ecological activity, not

xed, countable stocks of capital andinventory.

The generativity of commons stew-ardship, therefore, is not focused onbuilding things or earning returns oninvestment, but rather on ensuring ourlivelihoods, the integrity of the com-munity, the ongoing ows of value-cre-ation, and their equitable distributionand responsible use. Commoners arediverse among themselves, and donot necessarily know in advance howto agree upon or achieve shared goals.The only practical answer, therefore, isto open up a space for robust dialogueand experimentation. There must beroom for commoning the social prac-tices and traditions that enable people

to discover, innovate and negotiatenew ways of doing things for them-selves. In order for the generativityof the commons to manifest itself, it



11/86

needs the open spaces for bottom-upinitiatives to occur in interaction withthe resources at hand. In this way, cit-izenship and governance are blended

and reconstituted.

Creating an architecture oflaw and policy to support thecommonsFor too long commons have been mar-ginalized or ignored in public policy,forcing commoners to develop theirown private-law work-arounds or suigeneris legal regimes in order to estab-lish collective legal rights. Examplesinclude the General Public Licensefor free software, which assures its ac-cess and use by anyone and land trusts,which establish tracts of land as com-mons to be enjoyed by all yet ownedas private property (property on theoutside, commons on the inside, asCarol M. Rose has put it).1 The future of

the commons would be much bright-er if the state would begin to provideformal charters and legal doctrines torecognize the collective interests andrights of commoners. There is also a

need to reinvent market structuresso that the old, centralized corporatestructures of capitalism do not domi-nate, and squeeze out, the more locally

responsive, socially mindful businessalternatives (a trend that the SolidarityEconomy movement has been stoutlyresisting). Throughout history, civilizations havealways had a dominant organization-al form. In tribal economies, gift ex-change was dominant. In pre-capitalistsocieties such as feudalism, hierarchiesprevailed and rewards were allocatedon the basis of ones social status. Inour era of capitalism, the market isthe primary system for allocating so-cial status, wealth and opportunitiesfor human development. Now that thesevere limitations of the market sys-tem under capitalism have been madeabundantly clear, the question we must

confront is whether the commons canbecome the dominant social form. Webelieve it is entirely possible to createcommons-based innovations that workwithin existing governance systemswhile helping bring about a new order.

Anthropologists, neurologists, genet-icists and other scientists con rmthe critical role that cooperation hasplayed in the evolution of the humanspecies. We are hard-wired to cooper-ate and participate in commons. Onemight even say that it is our destiny.While the commons may seem oddwithin the context of 21st Centurymarket culture, it speaks to somethingburied deep within us. It prods us todeconstruct the oppressive political

culture and consciousness that themarket/ state duopoly demands, andwhispers of new possibilities that onlywe can actualize.

1 Carol M. Rose. 1998. The Several Futuresof Property: Of Cyberspace and FolksTales, Emission Trades and Ecosystems. 83Minnesota Law Review, 129: 144.

The future of thecommons would bemuch brighter if thestate would begin toprovide formal chartersand legal doctrines torecognize the collective

interests and rights ofcommoners.

THE COMMONS AS A TRANSFORMATIVE VISION | 9


12/86

Water enshrines this muddy city as 1613 kilometres ofthought are stretched to a line, a coastline. This is Aucklandsoutline. Or so say maps with bounded stories of in and out,yours and mine, soft and hard. The sometimes lled-in,stepped-over contours of river and creek reach to where out-line turns inline edges dissolve. External, internal: innermargins out.

Water speaks as medial Auckland I see your guts. Such asilty subconscious made within mud. This city of slips, of be-tween-ness, solid and liquid, stable and loose. What shininggravity makes and marks the here, the We-here of soft andshared edges?

Reigning is a uidity, where waters seep not gush, rise asdo fall and pool in periods - puddling; held. A momentarystillness in a watery together. Where, like tensile breath, thisstation, this eeting refrain is marked in the tides unbrokenconcert. Residues take passage on the global tide the shift-ing ground pending release to unrelenting waters. Backto the ebb, the ow and the path of belonging in this We-system of distribution and exchange. Amid the citys contest-ing assembly of tempos its tide the We-within inherit. Itstide that carries place-rhythms resonance; a lull of connec-tion, a common isolation in the performance of with. Tide isthe citys curator of a common path a dance of aquatic se-ductions. It unites, connects, transmits and transforms wa-ter is Aucklands language of movement felt. Yet how muchof you is repetition, of us is repeated difference?

This Auckland-of-us is a lax city: some things oat, otherssink. Its a nonsubstantive city as its developed fabric loosely

hangs between boundaries of diffusion. Its geology of pa-tient rupture, its retreat from western turbulence when

Of we within margins:

A performance of edgeWRITTEN BY Hannah HOPEWELL



13/86

dominated by the consequences of mobility Auckland likesto move, and sometimes crash. Boom, boom, bust. Unlikecities of old and elsewhere, no church spires or civic space

reference this We-within-urban. Water marks and maps ourway and limits change. Composed of the common green ofthe cones, the utility of the trig points, the promise of themotorway and the inner edges of dissolution a stubbornconversation?

We of Auckland make a soft place to pause, collect, spreadout and leave. Neither a this, nor a that, but a city of sorts, acity of all-sorts. A here of muddy tones and intonations, u-id, blurred habits, a mixed metaphor of Paci c temperamentamid bitter breezes. Its a constant do-up, a x-up, an expand-ing city, an extending city, a city with its gaze rmly on theway out. A submerged city, an embodiment of its position inthe globe, cast adrift, free- oating and unable to be de n-itively xed or grasped. This is its very glory, its connectedisolation, its common form and re-form.

We of Auckland make a wayward city a go-it-alone city.Here common is a quiet anarchy. Auckland is a city looking

out, on the look out; a city where momentum means move-ment and movement means money. Immersed in water itsa sea of mirrors and mixed re ections. Seduced by beautyor blinded by Waitematas sparkle, its gaze is reduced to asquint a cloudy desire of not quite there yet intention. Its ahaphazard city borne from the tension of locating terra rmaon such shifting waters. Knocking down and smoothing outto soak up, to mop up all that dampness with stolen earth We of Auckland nd dif culty in holding ground.

Things break off, and like the mangrove seed oat away, gounderground and re-emerge to take root elsewhere. We-with-in ts no spatial mould. For planning-norms are of else-where - with a form fetish and tone deafness they cannotlocate the cadence of this song. Yet this is no accident, nofailure of city planners, for Aucklands muddy qualities, its an-archic squint, are borne on the seepage of the tide, the cracksin the concrete, the unruly kikuyu, the smell of damp base-ments and a yearning for bare feet. This is the We-with-in

and Aucklands order of sorts; this common marginal, thesehybrid edges where production intensi es within the sea ofstuff and the slipperiness of difference.

OF WE WITHIN MARGINS: A PERFORMANCE OF EDGE | 11


14/86

The former chief economist of theWorld Bank and Nobel Prize winnerbelieves that insight into this paral-lel holds the key to global economicrecovery.

But is his assessment correct?

In 1900, the United States economyneeded a huge portion of its popula-tion to engage in food production. Thatsituation changed over the next threedecades as advances in seed technol-

ogy, fertilizers, farming practices andfarm equipment ignited massive gainsin agricultural productivity.

How to escapethe inferno

For his 2012 Vanity Fair article, The Book of Jobs, JosephStiglitz addresses a simple question: what are the parallelsbetween the Great Recession of the 1930s and the globaleconomys current Great Stagnation?

WRITTEN BY Leland MASCHMEYER

Eventually, output outpaced demand.Prices plummeted. Farmer incomesshrank.

To compensate, farmers borrowed heav-ily to sustain their living standards andagricultural operations. They hoped topush through the hard times in expec-tation of an eventual turnaround.

The price declines, however, weresteeper than anyone expected. Theduration of unemployment was also

longer than the banks could support.With credit stretched too thin, a creditcrunch ensued. Thats when the econo-my snapped and collapsed.



15/86

is currently undergoing an economicphase change on the same scale as theshift from an agricultural economy to amanufacturing economy.

In the 1950s, manufacturing jobs madeup a third of the United Statess workforce. Today, the productivity gains ofdigital technology, automation, algo-rithms and outsourcing has shrunkthat number from one third of the na-

tions workforce to less than a tenth ofit. Todays unemployed factory workersare yesterdays doomed eld hands.

The parallels dont stop there. Technol-ogy and outsourcing has downscaledthe total number of jobs available. Inthe United States, there are 6.6 millionfewer jobs today than there were fouryears ago. Some 23 million Americanswho want full-time work cannot nd itand half of them have searched for sixmonths or longer with no luck. For the

rst time since the Great Depression,unemployment has exceeded 8 percent four years after the onset of re-cession (Denning, Is the US in a PhaseChange to The Creative Economy?).

Stiglitz compels his readers to not lethistory continue to repeat itself.

To aid its citizenry, the United Statesgovernment loaned money to the dis-traught workforce.

That in Stiglitzs opinion was a badmove as the loans only exacerbatedthe downturn. This policy helped main-tain an agricultural labour force de-spite the fact that, with each passingyear, the economy had less and lessneed for such labour. New machin-

ery eliminated and would continue toeliminate many agricultural jobs.

Unfortunately, it took World War IIto save the United States from itself.Military mobilization forced the coun-try to do two things it had been unwill-ing to do:

1. It led the government to build amassive manufacturing infrastruc-ture that tipped the economic scalesfrom agriculture to manufacture.

2. The war narrative compelled citizensout of the elds and into the factorywhere they received new, valuableskills.

At this point in the article, Stiglitz in-

troduces his core thesis: what causedthe Great Recession also caused thecurrent Great Stagnation. In otherwords, the worlds largest economy

The worlds largesteconomy is currentlyundergoing an economic

phase change on thesame scale as the shiftfrom an agriculturaleconomy to amanufacturing economy.

HOW TO ESCAPE THE INFERNO | 13


16/86

Rather than prop up an outmodedeconomy and workforce yet again, gov-ernment leaders must recognize theemerging economy, invest in growing

it and help the workforce quickly tran-sition into it.

The question then becomes: what isthis emerging economy?

Stiglitz believes the United Stateseconomy is evolving from a manufac-turing economy into a service economy.

But is his assessment correct?

Consider this: the majority of com-petition has historically remainedamong a few big players in each cate-gory. Think Chevrolet v. Ford, Sony Mu-sic Entertainment v. Universal MusicGroup, Anheuser-Busch v. MillerCoorsand Random House v. HarperCollins.

Big meant safe. It meant competitiveadvantages in the marketplace andintransigence in market share. In fact,the average lifespan of a company list-ed in the S&P 500 index in the 1920swas 67 years. Today, that lifespan hasplummeted from 67 years to 15 years.The bottom doesnt stop there, either.By 2020, turnover will be so rapid thatthree-quarters of the companies listedwill be companies people today havenever heard of (Gittleson, Can a com-pany live forever?).

Something deeper is going on than ashift from products to services.

Evidence suggests it is not a shift inwhat the economy produces, but in

how it produces.

Consider Joe Justice.

For many years, Joe enjoyed life asa young software consultant in theSeattle area. One day, a questionpopped into his head: Was a road le-

gal 100-mpg car even possible? At thattime, 100-mpg cars did exist, but theylooked like giant cigar tubes, held onlyone person and didnt meet any safetystandards. Nor did it look like Detroitwould ever produce one. By law, carcompanies only had to achieve 36.6-mpg fuel ef ciency by 2017. At that rate,the sun would burn out before Detroitproduced a 100mpg road legal car.

That said, Joe was a curious guy. Andcuriosity can take you a long way. Withno experience in automotive manufac-turing, this software consultant beganlearning how one might engineer whatFord, GM, Toyota and Honda could not.

He blogged about his ambition and

what he was learning along the way.This was a smart move. As his storyspread through social media, readersfrom all over the world raised theirhands to volunteer their help: for-ty-three in total from ve differentcontinents.

With little more than consumer-gradesoftware tools such as Dropbox, GoogleDocs, YouTube, Skydrive, Facebook andLinkedIn, Joe and the team didnt justlearn about building a car. They de-signed and produced a functioningprototype. What is most astoundingis how long it took them. Detroit typ-ically runs on 10-year development cy-cles. Joe and team cut out 98% of thatdevelopment time by producing their

prototype in three months (Denning,WikiSpeed: How a 100 mpg car wasdeveloped in 3 months).



17/86

So how did a novice team of 44 vol-unteers achieve what global organi-zations awash in capital, talent and

resources had not? The key was theirstructure and process.

Joe used what is known as a wiki-pro-duction model hence his teamsname: WikiSpeed. This model allowsanyone to contribute to the productionof a shared resource, or in this case, ashared product.

Joe recognized that offering anyonethe chance to contribute is only a goodstart. Protocols guiding how contrib-utors collaborate with each other arealso necessary. For this, he borrowed amethodology from software engineer-ing: Agile Method. Agile emphasizesshort working cycles, self-organizingteams working in a modular fashion

and constant iteration based on ex-perience and user feedback. Adheringto this method, Joe and team iteratedthe entire car every seven days. In oth-er words, they re-evaluated each partof the car and re-designed the high-est priority aspects every week. As forthe body of the car, the team iteratedwith small models and built the largerprototype using structural carbon bre

a process that took three days and atotal of $800 (Denning, WikiSpeed:How a 100 mpg car was developed in3 months).

Wikispeed is a microcosm of our neweconomy.

What has historically required hun-

dreds of people, rigid organizations,centralized leadership, millions ofdollars and decades of planning andtesting now requires a shared passion,

a Wi-Fi connection, free user-friendlysoftware and personal fabricators.

This is the emerging how of the newglobal economy.

Propelling this shift are networkedtechnologies that lower the costs ofparticipation; personal fabricationtechnologies that shift physical pro-duction from the factory oor to thedesktop; a design ethos that favoursproduct modularity; social media thatenables productive organizations toemerge as easily and as swiftly asconversations do; and decentralized

organizational models that allow col-laborators to produce value faster andmore ef ciently than traditional rms.

Calling such activity the service econ-omy downplays even ignores themost compelling truth: never beforehave individuals been able to collab-orate, coordinate and create with suchspeed and effectiveness. This neweconomy is, at its core, about support-ing and incorporating the ef cacy ofcommunity.

Stiglitz misread this future. It is not theservice economy. It is the peer-to-peereconomy.

Peer-to-peer describes the bottom-up

process whereby networked individ-uals collaborate on the productionof a common resource, outcome, orgood. The processs central mode of

Never before have individualsbeen able to collaborate,coordinate and create withsuch speed and effectiveness.



18/86

of growth, a corporation generates 25per cent less innovation than it did ata smaller stage. Social networks (e.g.peer networks) fare better. They scalesuperlinearly. Their slope is 1.15

meaning that, at each point of growth,these networks have fteen per centmore innovation than they previouslydid.

Why?

Social networks have two big bene tsover traditionally organized rms:

1. They allow individuals to self-se-lect for tasks that suit them, whichmore effectively aligns skills withchallenges.

2. They have greater variability of hu-man capability and information re-sources, which results in greatervariability of creativity.

The bene ts are speed, ef ciencyand innovation the same bene tsWikiSpeed reaped and the same bene-

ts modern organizations seek.

Forward thinking organizations arerecognizing that, in the long run,peer-informed models create the onlysustainable and arguably mostcritical competitive advantage left:access. Facilitating knowledge ows,ideas, passions, skills and collabora-tion among social networks meansthat ones company has access to them.It means that ones company has a dra-matically improved ability to innovate.Any company based on closed IP andrigid hierarchy cannot, in the long run,

survive competition with an organiza-tion based on peer-to-peer production.The company with the smartest, mostinvolved community wins.

coordination is neither command (asit is inside the traditional rm) norprice (as it is in the market) but self-as-signed volunteer contributions. Thisconcept has inspired (or, in some cas-es, resurrected) a long list of commu-nity-centric models of value creation.That list includes models such as:

1. wiki-production2. mass customization3. open-source platforms4. crowdsourcing5. commons6. crowdfunding7. crowdwisdom

8. collaborative ltering9. peer-to-peer renting.

Because peer production requires open,free and raw cultural material to useand participative structures to pro-cess it, these models have traditionallybeen limited to the immaterial sphereof digital information. Bytes are mucheasier and cheaper to distribute, rep-licate and edit than atoms. WikiSpeed,however, shows that peer productionis now expanding into the materialsphere.

The work of Geoffrey West, a physicistat the Santa Fe Institute, also showsthat community models like WikiSpeedare more ef cient at innovating. In a

speech at the TED conference, West ex-plained that hierarchies such as corpo-rations scale sublinearly. Their slopeis .75, which means that, at each point

This peer-to-peer revolution aspiresto no Utopia. Rather, it promisesan economy where contribution

supersedes accumulation.



19/86

blips of hope. To participate in them.To understand them. To share them. Toteach them. To copy them. To reapplythem. To write about them. To inventmore of them.

It is an opportunity similar to the oneMarco Polo de ned for the emper-or Kubla Khan in Italo Calvinos nov-el Invisible Cities: There are two ways,Polo says, to escape suffering from theinferno where we live every day. The

rst is easy for many: accept the infer-no and become part of it so that youcan no longer see it. The second is riskyand demands constant vigilance: seekand learn to recognize who and what,in the midst of the inferno, are not theinferno, then make them endure, givethem space (Calvino, 1974).

Stiglitz would agree.

Works Cited

About Architecture for Humanity. Archi-tectureforHumanity.org. Architecture forHumanity, Web. November 13, 2012 .Biewald,Lucas and Janah, Leila. CrowdsourcingDisaster Relief. Techcrunch.com. AOL, August21, 2010. Web. October 31, 2012. Calvino,Italo. Invisible Cities. New York: Harcourt,Inc., 1974. Print. Denning, Steve. Is the USin a Phase Change to The Creative Econo-my? Forbes.com. January 31, 2012. Web. May13, 2013. Denning, Steve. WikiSpeed: Howa 100 mpg car was developed in 3 months.Forbes.com. May 10, 2012. Web. November14, 2012. Gittleson, Kim.Can a companylive forever? BBC.co.uk. BBC, January 19,2012. Web. November 10, 2012. Opam,Hakim. A Chilean Teen Tweets About Earth-quakes Better Than His Whole Government.Gizmodo.com. Gawker Media. July 11, 2011.Web. November 5, 2012. Stiglitz, Joseph,E. The Book of Jobs. Vanity Fair. Vanity Fair

Worldwide, January 2012. Web. October 30,2012. West, Geoffrey.The Surprising Mathof Cities TED.com. TED Conferences LLC, July 2011. Web. November 2, 2012.

The future for peer models is certain-ly bright. In many ways, that future issimilar to previous technological revo-lutions. Like them, peer-to-peer bringswith it fresh revelations, new possibil-

ities of action and hope. But heres acritical difference: while the manufac-turing revolution, for example, prom-ised an Eden of massproduced comfortfor all, this peer-to-peer revolution as-pires to no Utopia. Rather, it promisesan economy where contribution su-persedes accumulation. It promises toennoble the commons by giving spaceto speak and tools to create. And mostimportantly, it promises that the mostintractable problems of our existencecan be solved through open collabora-tion, networked tools and a shared pas-sion among participants.

This future isnt as far off as one maythink. Right now, the crowdfundingmodel powers IBMs World Community

Grid to dramatically improve the wayand rate at which scientists discovercures. Right now, open-source hard-ware enabled a 14-year-old boy inChile to create an early warning sys-tem for earthquakes that alerts peo-ple via Twitter (Opam, A Chilean TeenTweets About Earthquakes Better ThanHis Whole Government). Right now,the commons model helps Habitatfor Humanity build homes for over100,000 people who lack adequateshelter each year (About Architecturefor Humanity). Right now, wiki-pro-duction and crowdsource models helpthe United States government provideaid to disaster victims more quicklyand cheaply than traditional meth-ods (Biewald, Crowdsourcing Disaster

Relief).

The opportunity that lies before thisgeneration is to grab hold of these



20/86

Thankfully, growing awareness of at-mospheric pollution levels means thatchange is imminent; science has prov-en many times over that we cannotcontinue this exploitative behaviour.Our cities have a major role to play inthis change and I am currently inves-tigating how a commons-based ap-proach to landscape architecture andurban design can contribute to the re-duction in CO2 emissions. Additionally,an improvement to a citys public spac-es with small, locally driven interven-tions can re-invigorate the public lifein our cities.

In 2009, the collection of scientistsand world leaders involved in the

COP15 climate change agreed thatdeep cuts in global emissions are re-quired . . . so as to hold the increase inglobal temperature below two degrees

WRITTEN BY John ALLAN

Reclaiming

the urbancommons

Arguably one of the most importantand most exploited commons is ouratmosphere the air we breathe. As

John Michael Greer so eloquently putsit, the worldwide habit of treating theatmosphere as an aerial sewer into whichwastes can be dumped needs to becompletely rethought.

Celsius. More recently, renowned en-vironmentalist and founder of 350.org Bill McKibben addressed this tar-get and has publicised scienti c datathat shows at the current rate of fossilfuel burning, this increase will occur in

fteen years. Furthermore, there is vetimes more burnable carbon in supplythan it will take to reach the two de-gree limit in temperature increase.

In New Zealand, the recently re-formedAuckland Council have identi ed thisneed to reduce greenhouse gas emis-sions as a high priority, noting in their30 year plan document (The AucklandPlan) that in Auckland, road transportis the number one contributor to thecitys emissions at 34.8%. National g-

ures show this is a trend across NewZealand. Notably, passenger transportis 84% private motor vehicle and only10% public. With the population ofAuckland predicted to increase by afurther million people by 2030, thesetransport emissions gures need tochange, and quickly.

In his book Rebel Cities David Harveyreminds us that before the car, streetswere the common ground where publiclife unfolded. Harvey adds that nowa-days, city streets are often clogged withtraf c, rendering that particular publicspace almost unusable, even for driv-ers. Current solutions such as conges-tion charges mean that these streetspaces are no longer a commons. So

how can design help us reclaim theurban commons and also reduce trans-port emissions?



21/86

My initial hunch was to look at settle-ment models that are designed aroundthe idea of living locally and there-

fore, driving less. Behaviour changessuch as working closer to home andliving closer to social and recreation-al opportunities are one way to helpcitizens stay out of their cars. As polit-ical scientist Karen Lit n notes inTheLocalization Business , this localisationideal is not new and some of the mostactive and aware groups of localisersare those creating eco-villages.

Auckland based architect Robin Allison,designer and resident of Earthsong co-housing community, de nes eco-villag-es in A Deeper Shade of Green as fullyfeatured settlements in which humanactivities are harmlessly integratedinto the natural world, and can be con-tinued into the inde nite future (38-9).

So, what can urban landscape archi-tecture take on from the design of anecovillage?

Earthsong is located in Ranui, Auckland.It is 1.2Ha with 32 households in a ter-race apartment style typology. Parkingis consolidated, and the buildings arearranged around a central commonsthat includes a common building, withshared amenities such as kitchen, laun-dry and guest accommodation. Muchof the common open spaces are usedfor growing food, including a mixedorchard. While it is located very nearthe rural/urban boundary, it is stillwell connected to the city by rail andbus routes. It is close to schools, local

shops, industry and commercial oppor-tunities, including a vacant lot in thefront of the site that the residents areopenly seeking development for.

On a larger scale, Village Homes inDavis (California) is 24 hectares of sim-ilar elements to Earthsong, with slight-ly more traditional suburban dwellingsand density. Here open spaces are con-solidated and connected by using com-

mon backyards with no fences. Theseareas treat storm water, grow food andare managed by the adjacent eight or soneighbours in what is called a PocketNeighbourhood Cluster. These clustersare connected together throughout the

Village Homes subdivision into a webof walkability a community connec-tor that allows people to live local.A neighbourhood centre houses thevillages necessities and is home to anumber of small local businesses.

These public spaces, linked withexisting streets and lanes canharness the web of walkabilityconcept, and allow city dwellers toreclaim the urban commons.

So, localising is how eco-villagers tack-le the emissions issue. They reducetheir consumption of energy by provid-ing as many of the essentials of every-day life within easy walking distance.The common spaces in eco-villages

provide a web of walkability and act asthe connector - the generator of socialinteraction that leads to resilient andlively communities.

RECLAIMING THE URBAN COMMONS | 19


22/86

How can this spatial model of aneco-village help the functioning of acity? Clearly Auckland, like most mod-ern cities, was not designed in themanner of an eco-village, however Ifeel that aspects of this model providea way to think outside of current plan-ning practices.

My rst proposition, and the subjectof my initial testing is to manipulate,reduce and consolidate the parkingsystem in Auckland Central BusinessDistrict to provide more opportunitiesfor common land / public space in anattempt to contribute to the reduc-tion of emissions. These public spaces,

linked with existing streets and lanescan harness the web of walkabilityconcept, and allow city dwellers to re-claim the urban commons.

Led by Denmarks urban design guru Jan Gehl, Copenhagen was one of the

rst cities in Europe to begin reducingcar traf c and parking in the city centre

in orderto create a city for the people.Heavily in uenced by Gehl, the afore-mentioned visionary document TheAuckland Plan has similar goals forAuckland. Gehl states in his aptly titledbook Cities For People that . . . in everycase, attempts torelieve traf c pressureby building more roads and parkinggarages have generated more traf cand more congestion(9). Gehls analy-sis noted that the city of Auckland has150 parking spaces per hectare, and myresearch shows that parking takes up13% of the CBDs surface area alone.Meanwhile, public open space in theCBD - the people space for residents only accounts for 7.5%.

If they cant park, they wont drive

this is one of Gehls many catch phras-es gleaned from his favourite traf cengineer. Phasing out and replacing carparking with a network of public open



23/86

spaces will provide more interest andsociality to our city streets and morepublic life to our city dwellers andvisitors. Partnered with an improvedpublic transport system fuelled by theproposed new city-rail loop, Aucklandwill reduce its carbon emissions by be-coming more walkable. I believe that toachieve an Auckland that is walkablerequires the implementation of a num-ber of parklets on every thoroughfare.In principle, a parklet is gained fromthe removal of one or two car parking

spaces from the streets and the returnof this space to public use. These par-klets offer the opportunity to relax,pause, or tosit and watch others (oneof humankinds favourite pastimes).San Francisco is leading the way withthe installation of such parklets on theback of a global movement that beganin the city called Park(ing) Day.

Park(ing) Day involves design teams re-claiming a metered parking space for aday, in a peaceful occupation that mayeven sneak through a loophole in park-ing laws (see parkingday.org for more).Some of the more loved and utilisedparklet creations have been retainedbeyond Park(ing) Day and proved avaluable resource for local shops and

cafes even though (and perhaps be-cause) the space is public, and not ex-clusively for the use of the adjacentbusinesses.

Installing a Park(ing) Day parkletin 2012 has fuelled my belief thatAuckland no longer needs the title ofthe most car parks per capita. It is timefor us to reclaim the urban commons,take back the streets and regain ourpublic life. These parklets will strategi-cally connect laneways, greenways, busstops, subways and streetscapes into anetwork of urban commons. A wonder-ful walkable and public transport ori-ented city centre will help drasticallyreduce Aucklands emissions and begin

restoring our atmospheric commonsone car space at a time.

Other References

Auckland City Council.The Auckland Plan.Auckland: Auckland City Council, 2012. Print.Bernhardt, J.(Ed.). A Deeper Shade of Green:Sustainable Urban Development, Buildingand Architecture in New Zealand. Auckland:Balasoglou Books, 2008. Print. De Young, R.,& Princen, T. (Eds.). The Localization Reader:Adapting to the Coming Downshift. Cam-bridge: MIT Press, 2012. Print. Gehl, J.Citiesfor People. Washington D.C: Island Press,2010. Print. Greer, J. M.Restoring the Com-mons. Resilience. Resilience, 2012. Web.Har-vey, D.Rebel Cities: From the right to thecity to the urban revolution. London: Verso,2012. Print. Parking Day.About Parking Day.Parking Day. Parking Day, 2013. Web. United

Nations.The Copenhagen Accord. UnitedNations Framework Convention on ClimateChange. United Nations, 2009. Web.

RECLAIMING THE URBAN COMMONS | 21


24/86



25/86

IPRs are never static, but are constantlyevolving in step with the culture sur-rounding them. Their evolution is nei-ther random nor pre-determined butis the result of constant struggle be-tween social forces contesting the pa-rameters of social access to knowledge.The state of IPRs at any given point inhistory is thus a snapshot of the powerrelations shaping that society.

At our point in history IPRs tell a sto-ry of a globalised world where na-tion-state laws are subsumed to su-pranational authority; where privatecorporations disproportionately in u-ence domestic and global policymak-ing; where IPR governance decisions

are based more on power politicsthan on empirical science; and wherecivil society organisations act as pow-er brokers and problematisers, often

Drug wars:The battle for thecommons in globalpharmaceuticals

All cultures in all times develop systems to manage their intellectualtreasures. In our time, knowledge is codi ed into intellectual propertyrights (IPRs). IPRs include patents on inventions and discoveries, andcopyrights and trademarks on artistic creations. They are the legalmechanisms that seek to strike a balance between public access to humanknowledge and private reward for the knowledge creators. Essentially,they are the formal rules that govern the intellectual commons.

WRITTEN BY Thomas OWEN

mitigating the excesses of the prof-it-driven status quo and leading theway to new avenues of social progress.

More than any other social actor, theglobal pharmaceutical industry (AKABig Pharma) has been responsible fortipping the current IPR balance awayfrom public access and towards pri-vate reward. This article highlights twomajor aws in the current IPR system:where increased patent protectionsmay actually impede innovation in newmedicines and where patents rendermedicines inaccessible to the majori-ty of those who need them. The articleends by citing alternative frameworksthat seek to enhance the intellectual

commons and to create a more social-ly just balance between public accessand private reward.

DRUG WARS: THE BATTLE FOR THE COMMONS IN GLOBAL PHARMACEUTICALS | 23


26/86

Big PharmaThe Big Pharma business model is un-usually dependent on IPRs. Their prod-ucts medicines are the result ofcomplex and highly expensive scien-

ti c research and development (R&D).Thus, from a business point of view, theelusive IPR balance must be tippedmore towards private reward in orderto recoup the costs of intensive knowl-edge creation. However, because theproduct in question is inherently life-saving (or at least, powerfully life-im-proving), from a humanitarian pointof view, it is imperative the balancebe tipped towards public access. Thistension has ensured that pharmaceu-tical patent protection constitutes thefront line in IPR struggles: Big Pharmalargely on one side; civil society publichealth campaigns on the other.

This struggle is nothing new to BigPharma. In essence, it has been ght-

ing it since before it was born. Thenineteenth century European chemicalcompanies from which the pharma-ceutical industry emerged were theoriginal industrial agitators seeking toin uence governmental patent regula-tion. They played a dominant role shap-ing the modern eras international pat-ent norms. In turn, when Big Pharmaemerged, it continued the traditionand played a dominant role shapingthe contemporary eras global patentnorms. In the 1980s, US company P zerled Big Pharma in a transnational lob-bying campaign to integrate patentprotections into foreign trade policy. In1995 they succeeded with the forma-tion of the World Trade Organisation its IPR component was based almost

entirely on blueprints drafted duringBig Pharmas lobbying campaign.

Within a few short years, such stra-tegic efforts paid off. By 2002, thetop ten Fortune 500 pharmaceuticalcompanies made more pro t than allother 490 companies combined. With

the global IPR balance tipping furthertowards private reward, Big Pharmashored up phenomenal wealth fromthe few blockbuster products it en-joyed global monopolies on. In thelast decade such heights have beenmitigated somewhat. The top elevenBig Pharma companies made US$711billion in pro ts from 2002-2012, buttheir relative dominance over otherindustries slipped from an average of37 times more pro t than all other in-dustries in 2001-2003 to 1.67 times in2004-2009.

Nevertheless, there is little doubt thatBig Pharma is still one of the mostpro table industries the world has everseen. Furthermore, recent studies show

that Big Pharma spends between twoand nineteen times more on promo-tion and marketing than on R&D; thataround half of new drug discoveriescome from publicly funded R&D; andthat Pharma companies are consistent-ly among the highest paying lobbyistsin Washington. It appears the businessmodel responsible for such phenome-nal pro ts is much less about creatingnew products and more about creatingthe regulatory conditions to monopo-lise the products you already have.

Problems with the currentIPR systemOne of the problematic ironies ofthe current IPR status quo is that BigPharmas aggressive approach to in-

creasing patent protection may haveactually impeded the innovation ofnew products. In his 2008 book, TheGridlock Economy: How Too Much



27/86

Ownership Wrecks Markets, StopsInnovation, and Costs Lives, MichaelHeller argues that too many patentprotections can actually create ob-stacles, rather than enablers, for in-

novation. For example, Heller cites anun-named Big Pharma company thatcreated a potential cure for Alzheimersbut never brought the product to mar-ket. According to Hellers sources with-in the company, the multitude of dif-ferent patent protections involvedcreated so many tollbooths that it wassimply uneconomical for any one com-pany to commercialise the drug.

Heller labels this situation the trag-edy of the anti-commons and citesseveral other industrial examplesto prove his point. He is not alone inthis argument. The concept of patentthickets is a common idea, wherebydense webs of overlapping IPRs createmultiple obstacles which companies

must pay their way through in order tobring products to market. A 2011 IPRreport commissioned by the BritishGovernment noted that such thicketsobstruct entry to some markets and soimpede innovation.

Further studies support Hellers thesis.For instance, a 2009 project by AndrewTorrance and Bill Tomlinson used com-puter modelling to demonstrate thatincreasing IPRs actually decreases netinnovation. The authors concludedthat the current IPR system:

generates signi cantly lower ratesof innovation (p


28/86

initiatives demonstrate that differ-entiated IPR systems indeed provideviable alternatives. For instance, inthe heyday of the nineteenth centurychemical dye boom, leading industrialplayers Germany and Switzerland al-lowed patents on processes, but not onproducts. This meant that if someone

could work out how to make a productby a different means, they could alsosell that product thus fostering greatinnovation in the race to perfect pro-cedures and re ne industrial methods.

India provides a contemporary exam-ple of the bene ts of IPR differentia-tion. After inheriting a British patentsystem over a century ago, India inthe 1970s redesigned its patent lawsto serve a postcolonial national devel-opment agenda. By adopting a similarapproach of granting patents on pro-cesses, but not products, India helpedto foster an innovative and entrepre-neurial national pharmaceuticals in-dustry with a high proportion of ge-nerics manufacturers. This strategic

approach to IPRs and national devel-opment meant that India became phar-maceutically self-suf cient, providingover 70% of its national needs.

Globally, India also plays a key roleproviding quality generic medicinesto poor countries. On recent estimates,the Indian generics industry provides

around 80% of donor-funded antiret-roviral HIV/AIDS medicines availableto developing countries. Supply on thisscale has not only ensured millionsmore HIV/AIDS af icted receive treat-ment; it has also dramatically loweredthe global price of antiretroviral med-icines. Indias ability to continue pro-viding this function, however, is nowseverely in doubt as a European Unionfree trade agreement seeks to increasepatent protections and considerablyimpede generics manufacture.

A further option championed by medi-cines access activists, the World HealthOrganisation and the United Nations,is the idea of a patent pool. These ex-ist when a number of patents by dif-

ferent owners are made available fornonexclusive use in a communal pool,with access dependent upon a pre-ar-ranged royalty fee. The pools aim is tolower the barriers for entry for genericcompanies, thus facilitating genericsproduction and innovation, and facili-tating collaborative research by effec-tively disentangling the patent thick-ets and monopolies.

Differentiated IPR systems and pat-ent pools demonstrate viable ways toinclude commons approaches withinthe existing IPR status quo. However,that status quo is still fundamentallyanti-commons, structurally privilegingprivate reward over public access. Whatthen, would a truly commons approach

to pharmaceuticals look like? In a re-cent article for Nature Biotechnology,Stephen Friend and Thea Norman ar-gue that it would look something like

When the balanceis right, IPRs canpromote innovation,full the commonsand benet us all.



29/86

what already exists in the elds of as-tronomy, math, physics and softwaredevelopment. That is, it would be anopen access system, where massivedata sets are shared, and the resul-

tant models deployed as a commonresource. Such a layer of shared in-formation, they argue, demonstrablyaccelerates information and nurturesthe development of commercialisableprivate goods. Where the current phar-maceutical IPR system siloes informa-tion and rewards non-sharing, a com-mons approach would open the systemand emphasise the mutual rewards ofshared resources.

Indeed, Big Pharma need only lookto their own recent history to see thebene ts of an open approach. In the1980s at the height of US HIV/AIDSpanic, the National Institute of Health(NIH) initiated an international screen-ing of already existing antiviral agents

from around the world. The searchuncovered the drug AZT - the rst ef -fective HIV/AIDS treatment on themarket. AZT was synthesised by a UScancer foundation in the 1960s, testedby a German laboratory in the 1970s,and eventually acquired as a potentialherpes treatment by Big Pharma com-pany Burroughs Wellcome. The 1980spublically funded NIH search revealedit was also effective against HIV/AIDS,so Burroughs Wellcome patented itand sold it for US$10,000 per patientper year, one of the highest prices ofany drug in history. While the IPR sys-tem ensured that Burroughs Wellcomemade enormous pro ts from AZT, thetrue innovation and discovery of thedrug had little to do with patent pro-

tection, and everything to do with thesimple act of sharing common knowl-edge internationally between gov-ernmental, non-pro t, and corporateorganisations.

ConclusionsIPRs seek a balance between the pub-lics right to access knowledge and thecreators right to be compensated for

their efforts. When the balance is right,IPRs can promote innovation, ful l thecommons and bene t us all. When thebalance is wrong, IPRs impede our col-lective intellectual, cultural, and tech-nological development, and arti ciallyconstruct scarcity of products and vastinequalities in wealth accumulation.

At this point in history, the evidencesuggests we have it very wrong.However, history also shows that IPRgovernance is constantly shifting andopen to in uence by various social ac-tors. Big Pharma may currently be themost powerful social actor vying toshape IPR policy, but it certainly doesnot have a monopoly on the best ideas.Commons approaches provide the

most fertile available framework tofoster greater innovation, social utilityand social justice. The issue now, then,is whether or not the internationalcommunity of commons advocates cansuf ciently exert their in uence uponglobal IPR governance, and create abetter balance for all.

Works Cited

Friend, Stephen H., & Norman, Thea C. Metcalfes Law and the Biology InformationCommons. Nature Biotechnology, 31(4)(2013): 297-303. Print. Hargreaves, Ian. Dig-ital Opportunity: A Review of IntellectualProperty and Growth. Independent Reviewof IP and Growth. Intellectual PropertyOf ce. 2011. Web.Heller, Michael A. TheGridlock Economy: How Too Much Owner-ship Wrecks Markets, Stops Innovation, and

Costs Lives. New York: Basic Books, 2008.Print. Torrance, A., & Tomlinson, B.Patentsand the Regress of Useful Arts. ColumbiaScience and Technology Law Review 10(2009): 130-168. Print.

DRUG WARS: THE BATTLE FOR THE COMMONS IN GLOBAL PHARMACEUTICALS | 27


30/86

The answer to this is, absolutely!Anyone can record their interactionswith place on a map, and free digitalapplications like Google Earth andQuantum Geographic InformationSystems (GIS) have democratised ac-cess to map-making. Geography andgeology students have long been ex-pected to make maps, and GIS is takenfor granted in these programmes. Butall student learning, regardless of dis-cipline, can be enhanced through in-teracting with spatial, visual displays.Now, in a new initiative, students in a

school of indigenous studies are learn-ing about and taking control of themap to tell their own stories and thestories of their communities.

The initiative began in 2010, whenstaff at Te Kawa a Mui (the Schoolof Mori Studies), Victoria Universityof Wellington, started implementingassignments using Google Earth andmap-based activity in order to enhancethe learning and engagement of ourstudents. Four years later about 300students from ten different courseshave done a variety of placebased as-signments. This work presents Moriknowledge in new and dynamic ways,and gives students the opportunity torecord local knowledge in map form.

The quality and variety of student worksubmitted is evidence of the waysthat Mori students have taken to thetechnique as a way of representing

Maps are spatial representations of our world. Oftenbeautiful, maps are found in the place where art meetsscience. We rely heavily on digital maps to tell us how toget places and these have now in ltrated our computers,phones and cars. Maps used in our classrooms are oftenseen as authoritative sources of information aboutphysical and political boundaries. But maps tell stories.

Maps have been used to alienate land. So who gets todecide what goes on the map? Can maps be used to telland share our own counternarratives?

WRITTEN BYO. Ripeka MERCIER

Putting Mori history,society and cultureon the map



31/86

their histories and their connections

to place. Furthermore, their work nowcontributes to a school-wide databaseknown as the Te Kawa a Mui Atlas (theAtlas).

As an example of the work, in 2010 stu-dents of rst-year course Mori Societyand Culture each chose a differentpoupou (carved gure) in the univer-sitys Te Tumu Herenga Waka marae(meeting house). They researched thatcharacter and wrote a geo-biography choosing three events in the life ofthat person and writing a short essayfor each event. Each essay was thengeo-located using Google Earth, to pro-duce a global map with more than 250placemarks depicting events of note inthe lives of historic Mori gures. Of

this exercise one student re ected Itseasier to remember events when timeand space are linked. This was an ex-ample of individual research that wascollated to produce a class-wide mapon a particular theme.

Students work together on projectstoo, for example, in second-year courseCultural Mapping they visit Mori ar-chaeological sites and comment upontheir condition in a day-long eld trip.Their group observations contributeto

the New Zealand Archaeological

Association (NZAA) database.

Students also work individually onmapping the projects, with the top-ics they choose varying widely. Forexample, in 2011 student Ali Bormanmapped her mothers cycle competi-tion routes using the line function inGoogle Earth. Mariana Whareaitu askedthe question Can a song be a map?andto answer this produced a Google Earth

yover choreographed to a recordingof a waiata (song) that was rich in lo-cal Mori place names and their signif -icance. Kerry Moses wrote alternativehistories to those commemorated bycolonial monuments and statues. Hismap reveals what happened behindthe scenes of the most visible artefacts

of history. Aneika Young mapped tradi-tional food gathering areas of signif-icance to her hap (tribe). We did notdistribute or publish Aneikas project,as her whnau (family) considered theinformation to be tapu (sensitive). Anopen access approach is not appropri-ate in all situations, as making someinformation freely available threat-ens the sovereignty of the traditionalowners of that knowledge. Mori tradi-tionally governed physical and culturalresources through a commons based

Mori are still recovering from the colonial conscation ofland, but while we cant physically occupy our traditionalplaces, in this project Google Earth and other digital mapping

technologies allow us to stage an emotional and intellectualoccupation.

PUTTING MORI HISTORY, SOCIETY AND CULTURE ON THE MAP | 29


32/86

approach that centred on stewardshipby a community with shared culturalviews. The ability to exclude external,unentitled appropriators or provide fordiffering levels of access to a particularresource where open access would notbe in the best interests of the resourceor the culture is a core tenet of thecommons approach.

In June 2013, some of this work wasmade publicly available through aGoogle Maps-based interactive web-site (see http://www.victoria.ac.nz/ Mori/atlas) which showcases the workof at least 70 students (only some ofwhich is described here), with the re-search of up to 100 to be releasedover the following year. The project asa whole contributes to the commonsthrough making Mori society, cultureand history (which is often limited tobooks, articles and oral sources) moreaccessible.

Knowledge is regarded as a common

resource in academia, but ironicallythe academy publishes and keeps it inways that make it hard to access and/ or understand. In the Atlas, we presentimportant contributions of the acade-my online, in an open and visually ap-pealing way. We present book-y infor-mation interactively, encouraging theuser to explore from their computeror smart device. You can zoom in and

out, pan across, change the look of thelandscape, observe the distribution anddensity of themes on the map, hoverover placemarks to see an overview ofits content, lter placemarks by theme,year or course in which the researchwas produced, click on placemarks toread a students research, and searchthe database. The place-based interac-tivity of the site is one thing that sets itapart from other map-based databases,as well as the variety of topics covered,and the community of practice (staffand students) feeding the project.

The Atlas gives students an active op-portunity to record, store and shareacademic knowledge, and to explorehow the gaps in research are bridged

by their own local knowledge, insightsand contributions. Knowing their workmight be published gives students



33/86

motivation to hone their research skillsand translate their most excellent workto an online common resource. Whilethe site is meant more as a showcaseof student work than a comprehensiveresearch database, we provide lists of

further reading that direct users tothe best sources in our area of MoriStudies.

The website was nancially support-ed by research funds and awards fromAko Aotearoa, Victoria University ofWellington and Squiz Limited, and it isan open, non-pro t venture.

While the Te Kawa a Mui Atlas ishaving an impact on student engage-ment and learning, and has produceda publicly available common output, itseeks to do more than just reframe andre-present knowledge to the world.Mori are still recovering from the co-lonial con scation of land, but whilewe cant physically occupy our tradi-

tional places, in this project GoogleEarth and other digital mapping tech-nologies allow us to stage an emotion-al and intellectual occupation. Through

reclaiming and retelling our storiesof the land, we restore the balance ofwairua (spirit) and perform our dutiesas kaitiaki (guardians) for all by giv-ing voice to the land in Aotearoa NewZealand.

For further reading please see

O. Ripeka Mercier, Sarsha Douglas, MeeganHall, Bruce McFadgen, Peter Adds, MariaBargh, Tahu Wilson(2013) PromotingEngagement Through A Student-BuiltSchool-Wide Digital Atlas Of Mori Studies.In Laura Wankel and Patrick Blessinger(ed.s) Improving Student Engagement andRetention through Multimedia Technologies:Volume 6 of Emerald Publishings Cut-

ting-Edge Technologies in Higher EducationSeries.

CULTURAL MAPPING STUDENTS REST,AND TAKE NOTES ON THE CONDITIONOF AN ANCIENT MORI P (VILLAGE) SITE,STRATEGICALLY LOCATED ON A RISE ABOVETE IKAAMARU BAY, SOUTH-WEST COASTWELLINGTON.

PUTTING MORI HISTORY, SOCIETY AND CULTURE ON THE MAP | 31


34/86

An interview withAnne Salmond

JC: What is the significance of the termthe commons to you?

The Western concept of the Commonsis interesting in that it predates privateproperty and the commodi cation ofnature through partitioning and sur-veying, which bundled nature up with-in the overarching authority of the law.

In my current work, it is very signi cantthat this concept of the commons ap-pears to interact well with the Moriworldview and its emphasis on ideassuch as participatory democracy andthe connection of communities andpeople to the land.

JC: So in your view, how do Maori andWestern approaches to what we callthe commons differ?

Over the years, in studying the his-tory of exchanges between Moriand Europeans, Ive come to realisethat European attitudes towards the

2013 New Zealander of the Year Dame Anne Salmond is a historian,anthropologist and author who perhaps more than any other New Zealandacademic or author has managed to bridge the often disparate worldviewsof Mori and European. Freeranges Joseph Cederwall talked with herabout the commons.

commons are driven by surprising cos-mological assumptions.

In many ways, one can grasp the colo-nial history of this country as exchang-es between competing philosophies the relational order of Te Ao Morion the one hand, and the contradicto-ry, entangled Enlightenment strands ofthe Order of Things and the Order ofRelations on the other.

The Order of Things, which is basedon Cartesian logic, divides mind frommatter, the observer from the observed,and culture from nature. This model isinformed by an even older cosmic mod-el, the Great Chain of Being, with its hi-erarchical model of elite beings at thetop of the chain the divine King, thearistocracy and commoners in civilisedsocieties, who rule over a cosmos in

which lower beings slaves, barbar-ians, savages and wild Nature with itsanimals, plants, minerals and rivers

-



35/86

- can be exploited almost without limit.This thinking has de ned political ar-rangements in New Zealand and can beseen as a predecessor to todays neo-liberal theories and ideas of Westernsuperiority over both Mori and Nature.

The supposed inferiority of indigenouscultures as well as plants and animals

ows directly from this model, alongwith the idea that people are in controlof the cosmos and can x any damagethat they do. In reality this model isvery arrogant, because scientists onlypartially understand the biophysicalsystems that govern our lives. Ratherthan ruling the universe, human be-ings are one life form among many andthe challenges we face cant be un-

derstood through the silo approach ofseeing science and people as radicallyseparate.

The divisions between mind and mat-ter, the observer and the observed andculture and nature that underpin theOrder of Things are contradicted byquantum physics, brain science andthe life sciences, for example. Althoughthis model is mythic, it is very resilientand currently people are running theworld based on this kind of thinking.

The Order of Relations, on the oth-er hand, bases its forms of order oncomplementary pairs of elements andforces linked in open-ended arrays,often ordered as networks or webs

(for example the internet), interact-ing in exchanges that drive changewhile working towards equilibrium.This kind of relational thinking in the

Enlightenment sparked many innova-tions, including participatory democ-racy; the emancipation of slaves andlater, of women; evolutionary theory,geology and the environmental sci-ences. Such forms of order are alsoincreasingly dominant in cutting edgescience, in the sciences of complex net-works and systems, for example.

The resonances between this kind ofphilosophy and Mori ideas about theworld are obvious, including the as-sumption that the environment andpeople are intimately interconnect-ed. The Mori worldview can also betermed as relational. Here, people arepart of the environment, linked withother forms of life in complex websof relations. It doesnt see people andthe environment as located in separatesilos.

Both the relational view and indig-enous worldviews are much moreadaptive and open to collaborationand incorporation of other ideas thanthe non-adaptive myths of Westernthought which are leading to the de-

struction and disruption of our bio-physical systems.

AN INTERVIEW WITH ANNE SALMOND | 33


36/86

JC: How did you become aware of thisdisparity?

I have been working on a waterwayrestoration project in the East Coastregion for the last fourteen years. Itbecame apparent through working onthis project how destructive currentland use strategies based on the sepa-ration of people from the environmentand the idea of private property have

been.

An example of this destructive ap-proach is the Malaysian company whohave purchased land in this region andhave a practice of clear-felling largeareas of steep lands down to the wa-ters edge, leaving piles of slash thatare washed into the valleys and outinto the ocean. After large scale log-ging operations upstream, the riverturns to liquid mud each time it rains,sweeping away banks and trees, threat-ening roads and bridges, and dumpingsediment in the port and piles of logson the beaches. On top of this stockgraze along the river banks, and peri-odically the Council releases sewagedownstream into the river. Something

is very wrong with the way we treatwaterways in New Zealand, as wildelements to be tamed, dump sites orwaste disposal units.

This industry is a prime example ofvoodoo economics. The trees are har-vested as raw logs by poorly paid un-skilled workers in dangerous condi-tions and transported on local roadsfor export as low value commodities. Areal cost bene t analysis would showthat despite the short term gains for afew people, this is an extremely neg-ative economic activity for local peo-ple. Through their rates and taxes, theysubsidise the foresty company - payingto dredge the port, repair the roadsand other infrastructure damaged byforestry operations, the health costs forinjured workers, and by direct subsidiesthrough the East Coast Forestry project.All they gain is a relatively few low paid

jobs. Fracking and other extractive in-dustries follow similar extractive mod-els and will present similar problems.

There is a disparity of wealth and pow-er in this exchange as many of thecosts are localised while the pro tsare exported. The problem here is thedisplacement of the communitys roleas stewards of their land by overseasshareholders and owners who have noreal interest in what happens to theland or the people who live there. Theydont have to confront the damage thatthey do. Similar things are happeningin developing countries but the amaz-ing thing is there is not much differ-ence between poverty stricken Moriareas of the East Coast and developing

countries.

The false dualisms of Western thinkingwhich see spending on biosystems as



37/86

a burden while ignoring the fact thatthe negative economic costs of ignor-ing these biophysical systems can infact seriously disrupt the economy andeven make production impossible.

JC: What excites you most about thisemergent commons approach?

To me the emergence of this conceptof the commons into the mainstreamand its compatibility with indigenousphilosophies indicates the possibilityof a new enlightenment. This approachis exploring ways of co-existing withnature and one another based on bal-anced exchanges.

I am also excited by the concept of cre-

ative convergence as being dealt withby thinkers such as Naomi Klein. Thisidea of creative convergence looks forthe positive middle ground betweenphilosophies, people and landscapesin order to nd prosperity rather thandivision for both. I am excited aboutwhat this new thinking could mean forthe commons and feel it could rear-range our ideas radically.

I am currently involved with othersin developing a foundation called TeAwaroa - a working alliance that aimsto generate relationships betweenpeople, land and waterways that con-tribute to prosperous, successful fu-tures. Te Awaroa is inspired by Moriphilosophies, along with the legacy of

the Order of Relations including theenvironmental sciences, internet tech-nologies and the science of complexnetworks. It is about people (including

scientists) working collaboratively andgetting away from theoretical hyper-space, down to the community grass-roots and ax roots level.

JC: You mentioned prosperity, howdoes the idea of prosperity differ in theMaori worldview?

The Mori concept of ora is a stateof peace, prosperity and well-being,based on balanced exchange amonglife forms and forces and this can ap-

ply equally to individuals, families orecosystems. It would be interesting tosee the changes to our society if thisconcept of prosperity was applied ho-listically in place of the current mea-sures used which are driving us closerto collapse.

JC: So this concept of prosperity has aspiritual element?

In the sense that it incorporates theconcept of energy or life force, yes,however I prefer to stay away from thedualism which sees indigenous philos-ophies as mystical and spiritual, andscience as empirical. In fact this ideaof ora directly relates to sciences suchas brain science which talks of living

complex systems. The same conceptcan be applied to ecosystems or ahealthy environment.

Indigenous worldviews aremuch more adaptive and open tocollaboration and incorporation of

other ideas than the non-adaptivemyths of Western thought.

AN INTERVIEW WITH ANNE SALMOND | 35

-


38/86

JC: How would a commons approachdiffer from the current dominant

paradigm?

The neoliberal system poses an ex-treme threat to nature and people alikein its focus on short-term pro ts andextractive relations. A more commonsbased approach would focus on theinterest we share in resources and topdown command and control modelswould be replaced with a focus on col-laborative decision-making and morelocal and adaptive approaches.

It is dif cult to predict how a morecommons based future would look asthe whole philosophy of this approachis that it is based on experimental,collaborative inquiry (including civ-ic science) and decision-making. This

experimentation is important, as thepathway will be different in every lo-cation, in the same way that every riveris different.

New Zealand is very privileged to haverich, very diverse landscapes in whichto run such experiments. The idea is to

examine distinct bio-regions includingpeople and communities, and nd waysto make each of these different regionsprosperous for people, land and var-ious species. Interesting possibilitiesare being explored already here in NZ.For example in the Whanganui treaty

settlement the local tribes demandedthat the river be recognised as a legalbeing, with its own rights and interests.Some observers found that odd, but infact, a legal recognition that waterwaysexisted before people and that we de-pend upon them for our wellbeing andsurvival is scienti cally well grounded.Rather, its the idea that human beingsare in charge of waterways and can ex-ploit them without limit that is irratio-nal and mythological.

The commons approach aims to makethe similarities between approachesemerge. It is a process of discovery ofother people and of applying our en-ergy collectively with others to drivetowards shared goals in which all of us

have something to gain.

It is difficult topredict how a morecommons basedfuture would look asthe whole philosophyof this approachis that it is basedon experimental,collaborative inquiryand decision-making.



39/86


40/86

Adapted fromLogic of the commons & the market: a shorthand comparison of their core beliefs

ACCESS TO RIVAL RESOURCES(LAND, WATER, FOREST) Limited access; rules

defined by owner. ACCESS TO NON-RIVAL

RESOURCES (IDEAS, CODE)Limited access; scarcity is

artificially created throughlaw and technology.

USE RIGHTSGranted by owner (or not).

SOCIAL PRACTICEPrevail at the expense of others;

competition dominates.POWER RELATION TENDENCY

Centralization & monopoly.CHANGE AGENTS

Powerful political lobbies, interest

groups and institutionalized politicsfocused on government.

DECISION MAKINGHierarchical, top-down;

command & control.

PROPERTY RELATION

Exclusive private property.I can do what I want

with what is mine.

HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS TONATURE AND OTHER HUMANS

Separation; either/or;individualism v. collectivism;

human society v. nature

FOCUSMarket exchange

and growth (GDP)achieved through

individual initiative,innovation and

efficiency.

DECISION PRINCIPLEMajority rules.

IDEA OF THE INDIVIDUALIndividuals maximize benefits for themselves.

CORE QUESTIONWhat can be sold and bought?

RESOURCESScarcity is given

or created(through barriers and

exclusions).

Efficient resourceallocation.

IMPLICATIONS FORRESOURCES

Depletion/exploitation.

Enclosure.

KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTIONKnowledge regarded as

scarce asset to bebought and sold.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIETY

Individual appropriation v.collective interests. Exclusion.

FOR PROFIT



41/86

CORE QUESTIONWhat do I/we need to live?

SOCIAL PRACTICE

Commoning; cooperation dominates.

POWER RELATION TENDENCY

Decentralization & collaboration.CHANGE AGENTSDiverse communities working asdistributed networks, with solutionscoming from the margins.

ACCESS TO RIVAL RESOURCES(LAND, WATER, FOREST)Limited access; rulesdefined by users.ACCESS TO NON-RIVALRESOURCES (IDEAS, CODE)..Unlimited access;open access is the defaultnorm. USE RIGHTSCo-decided byco-producing users.

IDEA OF THE INDIVIDUAL

Humans are primarily cooperative social beings.

DECISION MAKINGHorizontal, decentralized, bottom-up.

Self-organization, monitoring andadjustment of resource use.

DECISION PRINCIPLEConsensus.

PROPERTY RELATION

Collectively used possession.I am co-responsible for whatI co-use.

FOCUSUse-value,common wealth,sustainablelivelihoods andcomplementarityof enterprise.

HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS TONATURE AND OTHER HUMANSInterrelationality; individuals and thecollective are nested within each otherand mutually reinforcing.

RESOURCESThere is enough for allthrough sharing (rivalrousresources); there is abundance(non-rivalrous)Strengthening social relationsis decisive for assuring fairshares and sustainable use ofresources.

IMPLICATIONS FORRESOURCES

Conservation / maintenance.

Reproduction & expansion.

KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTIONKnowledge regarded as

plentiful resource for thecommon good of society.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIETY

My personal unfolding is a condition for thedevelopment of others, and vice-versa.Emancipation through convivial connections .

THE COMMONS

THE COMMONS INFOGRAPHIC CHART | 39


42/86

Though food activism in wealthy coun-tries is becoming more widespread

witnessed by a resurgence of homeand community gardening, a pr

Documents

Freerange Vol.7: The Commons