Outlines on environmental philosophy part 8

239
PART III – POLITICS AND LAW
16. SUSTAINABILITY AND DEMOCRACY
Preface
Natural and social issues may often seem strictly interconnected. Sustainability
might be looked at as a prominent parameter for guaranteeing successful outcomes
both in the ecologic and social sense.
The Area of Research
The building of the snail’s coil metaphor is looked at as a paradigmatic example of
how a too high level of growth might have negative effects.
There seems to arise the need of a new paradigm where a deep correlation
between justice and sustainability prevails, so to give appropriate value to work and
nourishment of nature, just to cite a few prominent and current issues. A paradigm
based and the principle of precaution (not to take more than what can be taken)
appears to be a key aspect. A further development of the study of how inner
motivations affect human behaviour might be useful in understanding how different
economic models work. For self government to prevail, democracy might have to
respect diversity: if the rights of others are recognised, in fact, all of the subjects of a

240
system might perhaps prosper. Moreover, the condition of the weakest subject might
represent the barometer of how democratic a system is. By growing from the bottom
to the top, from inside to outside, local to global dimension, economies and societies
seem to be enforced in a sustainable way, to promote democracy local and global
realities might be inseparable and not contrasting. Democratic movements seem to
need to be rooted to local realities in order to strengthen at the national and
international levels.
Disciplinary Cultural and Scientific Objectives of the Research
It may be useful to individuate and analyse new forms of sustainable paradigms
which are arising today at the local and global level. Issues such as microcredit, fair
trade, social cooperation and civil economics, among others, are briefly cited as
paradigmatic examples in this sense.
Work Phases
The analysis of the relationship between the issues of sustainability and that of
democracy has been subdivided into two steps:
Possible future environmental scenarios
Sustainability from the social point of view
Disciplinary Advancements and Expected Results
A comparison with the data from precedent extinctions might be looked at in order to
compare and appreciate how the current environmental crisis is affecting the
biosphere. In the current extinction, man appears both the main cause and a victim,
maybe without being able to understand and appreciate this double condition.
Current economic and social indicators may appear obsolete and inadequate to
thoroughly describe and analyse the complexity of environmental and social issues.
Moreover, real democracies have proven that they may be perceived as an effective

241
tool for imposing to governments to give back rights and resources belonging to
citizens and territories. Where and how his occurred might be interesting to further
develop.
The Main Sources For the Research
For the analysis of possible future environmental outcomes Latouche represented the
main reference. Illich, Latouche and Shiva were the main sources for the
investigation of the social dimension of sustainability.

242
17. GOVERNING ACCORDING TO NATURE
Preface
Overstructures may appear to be a determining element in shaping society and its
choices. To change and adapt such structures might prove fundamental to change the
way decisions are taken. Closer attitude to nature might prevail in determining more
positive outcomes for a more environmental and just democratic participation and
government.
It is argued that increasing detachment of man from the biosphere may be caused by
the fact he is getting used to a more and more overdetermined and artificial reality.
The recuperation of an ecological equilibrium might depend on how much a
civilisation is willing to give up technological and material benefits which might
satisfy material needs but leave unanswered inner demands and ecological issues.
It seems that common-pool goods configure a social structure that is the opposite
to that created by the market, which appears to be based on competition and not on
cooperation, on interpersonal exchange among subjects who have no relation among
themselves instead that on individuals who through such exchange satisfy their needs
by establishing social relations. Common-pool goods appear in fact to be institutions
which have resisted through time overtaking continuous attempts of enclosure and
privatisation because they are flexible and capable of changing in front of
environmental and technological challenges.

243
It is highlighted how nature and communities could be perhaps perceived as the main
drivers for implementing an efficient and correct democratic participation and
government of the biosphere and its resources. The role of civil society might be
active in this sense and also in establishing a permanent control over the
administration and use of such resources be the competent authorities.
From an analytical psychology’s point of view, it is claimed, to entrust the
individual unconscious might yield better outcomes than to follow external
authorities’ decisions: this approach might forge better structured societies as well as
more flexible political forms.
Work Phases
The government of nature has been investigated in two different ways:
Society’s role
The comparison between an overly determined society and one which entails direct
involvement of communities in the government and administration of resources
A juridical aspect which might prove essential when dealing with a society based on
common-pool resources could be constituted by the fact that the absence of property
over such resources might prevent subjects to misuse them. Human rights, as the
environment, might be hardly perceived as something which might be owned by
private or public entities. It could be useful to analyse cases in which a
predominance for private property over natural and intangible resources as opposed
to other ones where the common ownership prevailed were involved, and which
different outcomes both regimes expressed.

244
Illich resulted the main reference for the investigation of society’s conditions. Illich
and Ricoveri were the main sources for the comparison of different models of
political participation within societies.

245
18. COMMON-POOL GOODS
Preface
The common-pool resources’ regime is an ancient decision making and management
system which was commonly utilised around the planet up to a certain point in time.
It is still prevailing in many parts of the world, although it seems increasingly in
danger. Several aspects of such a model may suggest that juridical regimes may
often produce better outcomes for the environment and local communities than those
arising from a widespread use of public or private property.
It is argued that common-pool resources are perceived to represent a diversified
reality, difficult to be adequately described by law articles, because they are open
local systems, receptive and adaptable to special and temporal factors.
An historical overview of common-pool goods is looked at. Data show that in
many circumstances the management of common-pool resources proved more
efficient and effective both in the ecological and social dimensions than public of
private ones. Often, it is argued, highly centralised decision making yields to a
decrease in social rights, as well in infrastructures and natural resources. Several
cases of current common-pool resources’ models throughout are briefly looked at.
It is argued that there appears to arise some kind of correlation between such
common-pool resources models and that of degrowth. More specifically, custom and
the absence of a systematic commercialisation of common-pool goods seem to have
limited the use of such resources to acceptable levels.

246
Work Phases
The investigation on the topic of common-pool goods has been undertaken following
two steps:
A thorough description of the common-pool resources model.
An historical overview of the common-pool resources model
The common-pool resources model is thoroughly described, analysed and compared
to the solutions so far proposed for the management of the problem of the so called
tragedy of the commons. A third way, neither private nor public, but collective or
common is suggested to solve disputes over common-pool resources. It may prove
meaningful to further investigate the psychological reasons why this third way might
prove more viable end effective than the other two, and why, where and why the
other two prevail. One might investigate why, often, a bottom-up approach in
decision making through participatory democracy seems more appropriate than a
top-up one.
The concept of subsistence, which appears to be a relative one, strictly connected
to that of common-pool resources, might be more deeply analysed. It may be
investigated what for different realities an appropriate level of subsistence means and
what it might entail.
Illich, Ostrom and Ricoveri were the main sources which provided information on
what is the structure of common-pool resources and how they work. Abrami,
Latouche, Ostrom, Ricoveri and Shiva were the main references for a comparative
study on common-pool resources in history.

247
19. THE RIGHT TO COMMON-POOL GOODS
Preface
Rights on common-pool resources might be considered as a fundamental issue in that
from how they are conceived and implemented major economic and social effects
may arise. To understand how these rights’ are conceived, built and applied seems to
be a key question.
Use rights over common-pool resources might be considered as much important as
the same common-pool resources.
An historical overview of different juridical systems has been produced. It has
been argued how state and private jurisdictions seem today prominent, to the
detriment of the common or collective one. It is argued that such result might have
depended on the fact that, especially in the West, law has affected life and society
and not, how it perhaps should be, vice versa. It is argued that more collective
property rights should be conceived and enhanced to the detriment of public and
private ones, since often the latter are used by governments and corporations to
favour their interests and also because property or use rights over common-pool
resources are a meaningful indicator of the quality of life: (commons are usually
among the goods and services which are most important in relation to the health and
good living of humans, as well as an important heritage for the poor). Countries
might therefore adopt the role of legal guardians when property rights are not directly
granted to communities, while communities seem to constitute the most appropriate
usufructuaries, when not owners, of such resources (it is highlighted how along most
of human history collective property was the rule over natural resources).

248
It is pointed out how customary law, which is intended as the interaction between
humanity, ecology and localism, and an active participation to the democratic
process by the civil society, might prove relevant sources for improvements in the
political and juridical spheres.
Work Phases
The common-pool goods relation with rights and juridical systems have been
elaborated in two sections:
Juridical systems and their relation with property and use rights
Public and private vs. collective rights
Proximity democracy, namely which decision making models are conceived and
implemented in different parts of the world within local communities toward local
common-pool resources, seems to represent a topic which could be further
developed. Theoretical models of new political organisations and juridical and para-
juridical systems might be further investigated in that they might also seem more and
more necessary as society evolves and becomes more complex and differentiated,
and because standardised and globalised solutions might not prove optimal solutions
to be adopted in this sense. Key in this sort of analysis seems to be the personal
element which might be considered the core for the topic of relations in general.
In the West, it seems that too much abstraction by ideologies and reasoning from
scholars and intellectuals has prevailed to the detriment of the adaptation of law to
society’s customs and practices. Lately, common property has entered the
international discussion for is seems to have become more important and relevant for
what the changes in society and technology are concerned, as well as because, for the
same reasons, it seems that the binary logic of public/private ought to be counter
balanced (for instance to contrast the so called second enclosure movement, whose

249
aim is to, through ownership techniques, artificially create scarcity of resources). It
might seem relevant to further investigate in which constitutions around the world
space and prominence to collective rights are granted and in which ones public and
private rights are more enhanced. Traditional knowledge and biodiversity, among
others, might finally prove to represent common-pool resources which might not be
subdued to public or private jurisdictions, nor patented, for it seems that they ought
be perceived as a unique collective heritage for the whole of mankind.
Dalla Casa, Illich, Latouche and Ricoveri were the main references for what the
investigation of juridical systems was concerned. Mattei, Ricoveri and Shiva
represented the most prominent sources for the enquiry over public, private and
collective rights.

250
20. PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY
Preface
Rights usually appear to be the direct and concrete outcome of cultural, economic
and political speculations and reasoning. A shift from a collective to individual
juridical paradigm seems to have occurred in time. This may have implied a
consequent shift from more importance granted to individuals’ rights to the detriment
of communities’ ones (instead of an integration of the two). From an
ecobiopsychological point of view, this might represent a negative outcome, since it
seems to confer more importance to a single subject than to the web of relation and
its underling system as a whole.
Several international treaties and documents concerning participation rights are
examined (i. e. Agenda 21, Aarhus Convention).
International juridical principles and conceptions are investigated (e. g. world
heritage, common heritage of mankind, common but differentiated responsibilities’
principle, common concern of mankind.
The concept of landscape, both from a cultural and juridical dimension, has been
described.
The cultural and legal dichotomy between how the earth is perceived by Western
civilisation and traditional one is briefly looked at. In this sense, political
participation models suitable for the two above cited paradigms are explained and
proposed. Linked to this, it is argued that a democratic economic system should
always acknowledge people’s decisional power and question communities when
possible. It seems that politics should be intended as political ecology, thus, ought to
be more based on ecological and social paradigms. A more horizontal political
systems might in this sense appear more appropriate, in that it could provide a

251
permanent interaction between administrators and administered in the forms
adequate to the territorial scale of choices.
It is pointed out how, after a speculation within the social and economic dimensions
in regard to common-pool resources, it may prove fundamental to define effective
laws in order to put into effect theoretical assumptions.
Within an ecobiopsychological vision, the concept of landscape, is highlighted,
might be strictly linked to issues concerning participatory rights and democracy.
Landscape, if considered as a system composed by cultural, ecological, physical and
intangible elements, thus it ought to imply a thorough evaluation in terms of
biodiversity as this is strictly connected with the level of resilience of a particular
ecosystem.
It is discussed how to translate cultural, environmental and procedural rights into
clear and defined laws might not always be so simple.
Work Phases
The topic of participatory democracy has been analysed from different perspectives:
Environmental rights and public participation
International juridical principles and conceptions
Landscape-related rights
Dichotomy individual/collective rights
Since the main cultural paradigm seems to tend not to fully acknowledge an
appropriate legal importance to peoples and their rights, as well as to the
fundamental role the earth has through its regenerative processes and ecoservices, it
is argued that the current dominating economic system seems to guarantee too much

252
legal independence and freedom to economic and financial entities, often to the
detriment of environmental and communities’ rights. Cases and situations in which
this paradigm emerged throughout the world might be further analysed and
described.
The main sources for the topic of environmental rights and public participation were
United Nations’ documents. For what international principles and conceptions are
concerned the main references were represented by Ricoveri and United Nations’
documents. The main source for the topic of landscape rights were Council of
Europe’s documents. For the investigation on the dichotomy individual/collective
rights the main references were Ricoveri and Shiva.

253
16. SUSTAINABILITY AND DEMOCRACY
When the last tree will be cut down,
the last river poisoned,
the last fish caught,
you will find out that one cannot eat
the money deposited in your banks
expression of a Native Amerindian
Visions of the Future
Latouche argues that according to experts we are currently living in the sixth mass
extinction. Every day, in fact, the vanishing of a number of species (vegetable and
animal) between 50 and two hundred takes place, a dramatic data that is one
thousand times greater than that of the hecatomb of past geological eras. There has
never been, basically, after the ice age, a rhythm of extinction comparable to the
current one. During the fifth extinction, in the Cretaceous 65 million years ago, the
end of dinosaurs and other big size animals occurred, probably due to the impact on
the planet of an asteroid, but mutations then have taken place in a much longer time
span in comparison with current catastrophes. Today, moreover, differently to
previous epochs, man seems to be directly responsible for the current depletion of the

254
living matter, and might as well become a victim of it. According to French
toxicologist Jean-Francois Belpomme, the end of humanity could occur before what
expected, that is in 2060, due to the widespread sterility in masculine sperm
produced by the effect of pesticides and other persistent organic pollutants (of which
cancerogenic, mutagenic, reprotoxic chemicals represent the most harmless species)1
.
Latouche argues that after centuries of rampant wasting, it could seem that we
might have entered a turbulence zone, figurative and literally speaking. The author
claims that an acceleration of natural catastrophes (drought, flooding, cyclones) is
already under way. To climate changes oil wars ought to be added (to which those
for water might follow), probable pandemics, and even biogenetic catastrophes are
foreseen, the scholar continues. It might seem by now evident that we are heading
toward ultimate collapse. Only the speed at which we are getting there and the
moment of impact are, many argue, to be calculated. According to New Zealander
geologist Peter Barrett, director of the Antarctic Research Centre of Wellington, New
Zealand, “to keep on with such dynamics of growth will put us in front of the
perspective of a vanishing of civilisation as we know it, not in millions or thousands
of years, but within this century”. Only a few decades, according to some experts, to
see a world (if it will still exist) which will be very different to today’s2
.
Justice and Sustainability
In these conditions the urgency of recovering the wisdom of snails and all that can be
learnt by them, as often in nature’s examples, might seem evident. Snails in fact not
only may teach us the need of being slow, Illich argues, but, he goes on, “after
having added a number of bigger and bigger coils to the delicate structure of their
shell, they suddenly interrupt their building activity. Just one more coil would
increase by 16 times the dimension of the shell. Instead of contributing to the well
being of the snail, it would add so much weight that any increase of productivity
1
Refer to Latouche, Serge (2007) Farewell To Growth Polity / La Scommessa della Decrescita
Feltrinelli, p. 7
2
Ibidem, p. 7-8

255
would be literally crushed by the task of facing the difficulties created by the
enlargement of the shell beyond the limits fixed by its same goals”. Illich concludes:
“At this point the problem of overdevelopment begins to multiply itself in a
geometric fashion, while biologic capabilities of snails, in the best of hypotheses,
cannot increase more than of an arithmetical proportion”. By abandoning the
geometrical pattern which it was previously seeking, the snail indicates the path to
think of a degrowth civilisation, if possible serene and convivial3
.
Shiva claims that the Western conception of property often seems to consider
investments only in terms of capital and therefore limits itself to quantify profits
according to the invested capital. On the contrary, indigenous communities of
developing countries seem to valorise investments even in terms of work, assistance
and nourishment. They therefore do not seem to limit themselves to protect the
invested capital, but also enhance the conservation of those values which induce to
avoid waste of resources and favour mutual cure and sustenance. It seems that in this
way, even the culture of conservation, sharing and solidarity might preserved4
.
Shiva argues that the need of a new paradigm in which a deep correlation between
justice and sustainability might appear evident. Not to take more than the necessary
could mean to allow the ecosystem to conserve a quantity of resources sufficient for
the other species and preserve the essential ecologic processes that ensure
sustainability, Shiva claims. This might also mean that sufficient resources to
provide for the sustenance of other communities might be guaranteed, she
concludes5
.
Latouche claims that in the perspective of building a degrowth society, the main
problem might not seem to be represented by the fact of having to change the unit of
measurement to transform society (for instance the level of gross domestic product,
3
http://www.spazioetico.it
4
Refer to Shiva, Vandana (2011) Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability and Peace Zed Books /
Il Bene Comune della Terra Feltrinelli, p. 31
5
Not to take more than the necessary also corresponds to the highest expression of the principle of
precaution, which invites not to take risks when the consequences of determined actions cannot be
fully appreciated. An economic system which is inspired by non violent practices, Shiva argues, has
to be based on pluralism and diversity. If the rights of others are not crushed, different species could
survive. Simultaneously, Shiva claims, we would participate to the development of a multiplicity of
occupations and commercial activities. Development, the scholar claims, represents a barometer to
measure the level of non violence, sustainability and justice present in a society. Diversity might also
be strictly linked to the possibility of self government. It constitutes the prerequisite on which
economic and political liberties are based on, the author argues. Decentralisation and democratic
control might be perceived as political corollaries of an encouragement to diversity, because they offer
to different species and communities the freedom of self-governing and evolving according to their
needs, structures and priorities, Shiva concludes. Ibidem

256
public debt, inflation), but to start to change the values and only consequently the
concepts to which we want to base our model on6
.
Italian economist Luigino Bruni’s work is currently focused on the role of
motivations on economic and civic behaviours. The scholar claims that even if often
within the modern vision of society it is believed that where the market ends the gift
culture begins (and vice versa), in reality it may be noticed that the boundary
between gift and market is instead very thin, and the two are much linked. It is
possible, in fact, to discover gift practices within firms, the job market and markets in
general, as the structure of exchange can be found even within typical gift practices,
from families to voluntary work7
.
If what is happening today within social innovation (from microcredit to fair
trade, social cooperation to civil economics) is analysed, it could be noticed that the
experiences which are today opening new paradigms seem to include promiscuous
and hybrid ones, that is those where gift and market might be allied for the common
welfare8
.
German sociologists and writers Wolfgang Sachs and Tilman Santarius of
Germany’s Wuppertal Institute For Climate, Environment and Energy analysed the
main factors of ecologic and social global crisis and proposed to industrialised
countries a concrete agenda to reform society, economy, technologies, international
6
To rethink, according to Latouche, means first of all to reconceptualise. Wealth (or poverty)
indicators do not seem any longer appropriate simply because a change in mentality has occurred and
to modify them maintaining the economic and social context unchanged, would mean to put new wine
in old barrels. Latouche argues that “the decolonisation of the unconscious must go through a process
of reintroduction of the economy within the social sphere (thus within the biosphere), thus overruling
the terms of the issue”. The author adds that “if instead one would continue to concentrate on
economic wealth, as it is the case within a market-based society, poverty will be considered a problem
and injustice against which one should fight”. Refer to Latouche, Serge (2007) Farewell To Growth
Polity / La Scommessa della Decrescita Feltrinelli, p. 59
7
A gift economy or gift culture is a mode of exchange where valuables are given without an explicit
agreement for immediate or future rewards. In contrast to a barter economy or a market one, social
norms and custom govern gift exchange, rather than an explicit exchange of goods or services for
money or some other commodity. Gift culture is frequently embedded in political, kin, or religious
institutions, and therefore does not constitute an economic system per se. Gift culture is distinguished
from other forms of exchange by a number of principles, such as the form of property rights governing
the articles exchanged. Gift ideology in highly commercialised societies differs from the prestations
typical of non-market societies. Gift economies must also be differentiated from several closely
related phenomena, such as common property regimes and the exchange of non-commodified labour.
Refer to http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/economia-e-felicita_%28XXI_Secolo%29
8
Fair trade is an organised social movement that aims to help producers in developing countries to
obtain better trading conditions and promote sustainability. It advocates the payment of a higher price
to exporters as well as higher social and environmental standards. It focuses in particular on exports
from developing countries to developed ones, most notably handicrafts, coffee, cocoa, sugar, tea,
bananas, honey, cotton, wine, fresh fruit, chocolate, flowers and gold. Refer to
http://www.fairtrade.net/what-is-fairtrade.html

257
institutions and economic relations. Their work has inspired a campaign for
sustainability and has been defined by former German President Horst Köhler “a
model in the field of sustainability: their work also focuses on the importance that
local economies must play to of the mainstream ideology which holds that
globalisation is key for development9
.
Shiva claims that local economies do not represent the only form of possible
economy, but that they are the pillar of a just economy and society. By growing
from the bottom to the top, from inside to outside, local to global dimension,
economies and societies, the scholar believes, are enforced in a sustainable way,
without resorting to exploitation or subsidies which destroy the production and life
perspectives of local communities. In this sense, the initiative aimed at promoting
democracy within local realities, national and global, should not mutually exclude,
the author claims, but be inseparable. Shiva argues that only active control by the
citizens can democratise national governments and global institutions10
.
It might seem advisable that change could and should start from the bottom and
from realities of small dimensions, because it best suits human-size contexts. There
are movements and organisations of virtuous bodies which have decided to put at the
top of their priorities the ecological and social aspects, often not to the detriment of
efficiency and profit. One of these examples could be found in the Italian association
of councils called Virtuous Councils of Italy11
.
Marco Boschini has been the coordinator of the association for seven years.
“Since seven years, two or three times a week, I hold meetings all over the country
looking for incredible experiences, stories of extraordinary women and men, pieces
of ideas and projects which are bricks of the other Italy, the possible one, which
many of us dream of”.
9
Refer to Sachs Wolfgang e Santarius Tilman (2007) Fair Future: Limited Resources and Global
Justice Zed Books / Futuro Sostenibile – Le Risposte Eco-Sociali alle Crisi in Europa Ambiente
10
According to Shiva, real democracies could impose to governments to give back those rights and
responsibilities which belong to the citizens, as also demand that global institutions give back what
belongs to national and local realities. But a democratic movement, she continues, strengthens at the
national and global level only if it is deeply rooted in local realities. According to the scholar, to
redefine governments’ competences might mean to extend the sovereignty of citizens and guarantee
the defence of their rights, resources and life perspectives, stopping economic liberalism. Shiva
concludes adding that it might also be advisable to individualise a sphere of intergovernmental
competence which would control the exploitation of global ecological resources, such as for instance
the atmosphere. Refer to Shiva, Vandana (2011) Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability and
Peace Zed Books / Il Bene Comune della Terra Feltrinelli, p. 96-98
11
http://www.ponteweb.it/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=7489

258
Boschini continues: “[...] From the sum of small virtuous experiences scattered all
over the country an astonishing, real, indestructible outcome arises mainly thanks to
concreteness. The only way to change things, fix the worn out economy of the
country, reducing the environmental impact and improving the quality of life of local
communities, goes through some fundamental guidelines: to stop overbuilding,
recovering the areas and existing built heritage, requalifying it in energetic and safety
terms; protecting common-pool goods giving back to public control the main part of
local services currently in the hands of huge multi-utility groups and lobbies;
implement a serious action of prevention and maintenance of the territory, through a
multitude of small interventions, definitively abandoning enormous projects; extend
to all the 8,101 Italian councils a modern separate collection of rubbish similar to the
one of the most virtuous councils of Italy (Ponte nelle Alpi in the Belluno shire and
Capannori in the Lucca one); adopt a national energy plan which is totally based on
the energetic requalification of the existing public (and private) heritage, effectively
incentivizing the national energetic demand; radically potentiate public transport,
discouraging the use of private cars and ensuring the citizens the possibility of
choosing a lean and sustainable mobility; favour practices of participatory
democracy, experimenting tools and spaces of sharing of choices of local and
national government”.
Boschini concludes: “In a few words, what is already happening in some 60
Italian councils. [...] If these practices would be implemented on a large scale, we
could create thousands of job opportunities, reduce the environmental impact, save
money and guarantee to the younger generations a better future”12
.
12
Ibidem

259
References:
- Conviviality
http://www.spazioetico.it
- Fair Trade
http://www.fairtrade.net/what-is-fairtrade.html
- Latouche, Serge (2007) Farewell To Growth Polity / La Scommessa della
Decrescita Feltrinelli
- Relational Society
http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/economia-e-
felicita_%28XXI_Secolo%29
- Sachs Wolfgang e Santarius Tilman (2007) Fair Future: Limited Resources
and Global Justice Zed Books / Futuro Sostenibile – Le Risposte Eco-
Sociali alle Crisi in Europa Ambiente
- Shiva, Vandana (2011) Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability and Peace
Zed Books / Il Bene Comune della Terra Feltrinelli
- Virtuous Councils of Italy Association
http://www.ponteweb.it/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=7489

261
17. GOVERNING ACCORDING TO NATURE
Let us condense the Earth’s four billion years history in six days.
Our planet was born at zero o’clock on Monday.
Life starts at midnight on Wednesday and
evolves in all its beauty in the next three days.
Saturday at four in the afternoon the great reptiles appear
to disappear five hours later, at nine in the evening.
Man appears only Saturday three minutes before midnight.
The birth of Christ occurs a quarter of a second before midnight.
A fortieth of a second before midnight the industrial revolution begins.
Now, it is Saturday, midnight,
and we are surrounded by people convinced
that what they have been doing for a fortieth of a second
can last forever.
(free translation from David Brower, Le Nouvel Observateur)
Society’s Role
Decision making by authorities and how decisions are made seem to be a relevant
issue. According to which values and goals and also who decides are aspects which
appear fundamental both for mankind and the biosphere. It might seem relevant that

262
such issues could be driven by two main guidelines. First of all decisions could be
taken as much as possible by following nature’s rules. In the second place, decisions
might be taken as much as possible by the people or communities which are more
involved in each specific issue.
Illich claims that there exist two thresholds which can be analysed and considered
the pillars of the ecological and social failure. He underlines the existence of a
double threshold of development: once we go beyond the first one, science and
technique produce tools the potentiality of satisfaction of human needs of which are
undeniable. Beyond the second one, the institutionalisation and professionalisation
of those tools, according to the author, induce to man’s passivation and the
development of false needs. This becomes more evident as the overtaking of the first
threshold increases. It might be that this threshold, which improves life conditions
and quality of man, could induce him to deny the overtaking of the second one, thus
implying alienation from the place he is given within the biosphere and detachment
and insensitiveness toward it1
.
The recuperation of an ecological equilibrium, according to Illich, depends on the
capacity of society to react against the progressive materialisation of values and
technical tasks. If this reaction would not occur, the author claims, man might
become completely surrounded by the products of his tools, hemmed in without an
exit. Wrapped in a physical, social and psychical environment produced by himself,
he might be prisoner of his tool-shell, unable to recover the ancient environment with
which he formed himself. Ecological equilibrium might not be recuperated if one
will not understand that only the person has goals and that only that person might
work to accomplish them. Illich concludes: “It is the single individual that gives
sense to the world. As soon as he is separated by the biosphere, deprived of creative
work, mutilated of curiosity, as a beast in a cage, he loses his roots, is paralysed and
shrivels up. Finally, it could seem that the fundamental requests of eco-sustainability
and social justice might constitute prerequisite for bringing back the community of
men to a life which is more akin to human nature, thus implying a necessary refusal
of all that departs from the strict management of ecological and social issues2
.
It may often appear that governments, and the economic and financial lobbies
which heavily seem to control or influence them (both at the global and local level)
1
Refer to Illich, Ivan (1993) Tools For Conviviality Harper / La Convivialità Red, p. 75
2
Ibidem, p. 75

263
tend to undertake practices and actions which evidently depart from strict ecological
and social motives. A guardian role in this sense could be played by the so called
civil society, which is made up by formal and informal organisation and groups of
people such as associations, foundations, cooperatives, consortiums, committees,
movements and assemblies. Following is the experience of only one of the many
which seem to play such an active and positive role in this sense.
In 1995 a group of organisations within the civil society founded Social Watch, to
promote policies which would make real the promises of the United Nations, to
remind governments the commitments taken and independently follow their correct
implementation. Social Watch is today a network of more than four hundred non-
governmental organisations active in more than 60 countries. The annual Social
Watch report carries out a monitoring on the commitments taken at the international
level against poverty and gender equality. It represents one of the most
acknowledged analysis on social development in the world, and is often considered
the shadow report of civil society in respect to the United Nations Developed
Programme one3
.
The association is an international network formed by groups of citizens at the
national level. The national coalitions observe, through Social Watch’s national
reports, the progresses and back steps of the promised commitments and goals by
their governments. Social Watch coalitions, organised on an informal basis, have a
focal point in each country which is responsible for the promotion of the initiative, its
research and the dispatch of a national report every year. They are also responsible
for advocacy activity toward national authorities so that they will be responsible and
accountable for their work in accomplishing their commitments. The coalitions also
promote a dialogue on the priorities of national development and enhance an
inclusive strategy to allow the entry of new organisations4
.
3
http://www.socialwatch.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23:rete-
flessibile&catid=25:storia&Itemid=51
4
In the last decade of the 20th
century a series of United Nations conferences, from the 1990
Children’s Summit to the 2000 Millennium one, has redefined the world’s social agenda, in the same
moment in which the international economy was hit by globalisation. In 1995 United Nations’
Copenhagen’s Social Summit and Beijing’s World Conference on Women defined for the first time,
as universal common goals, the eradication of poverty and gender inequality, fixing the goals and
concrete deadlines for the reaching of the purposes indicated in 1946 in the United Nations’ charter
with the vague formulation “dignity for everyone”. Today the Social Watch network has members
(watchers) in more than 70 countries in all continents. The national coalitions regularly remind to
governments their commitments and supply them with alternative proposals, based on an informed
analysis of the situation and in strict cooperation with society. Social Watch was born as an attempt to

264
It may seem important to underline how a universe of organisations often in
contrast with governments’ goals currently exists. They often are the only guardians
without which lobbies and politicians could be induced to pursue their own interests
and not those of the biosphere and people. In this sense participation to social and
political processes by citizens might prove to have become a fundamental issue for
the improvement of obtained results both at the local and global level.
Participation in social sciences refers to different mechanisms for the public to
express opinions (and ideally exert influence) regarding political, economic,
management or other social decisions. Participatory decision making can take place
along any realm of human social activity, including economic (for instance
participatory economics), political (for instance participatory democracy),
management (for instance participatory management), cultural (for instance poly
culturalism) or familial (for instance feminism). For well-informed participation to
occur, it is argued that some version of transparency is necessary, but not sufficient.
It has also been argued that those most affected by a decision should have the most
say while those that are least affected should have the least say in a topic.
Participation activities may be motivated from an administrative perspective or a
citizen perspective. From the administrative viewpoint, participation can build
public support for activities. It can educate the public about an agency's activities. It
can also facilitate useful information exchange regarding local conditions.
Furthermore, participation is often legally mandated. From the citizen viewpoint,
fill up for the absence of control mechanisms in reference to international commitments in social and
development policies. However international controls by independent organisations already existed in
different areas, such as the successful one of Amnesty International in the field of human rights. But
Social Watch’s annual report became the first initiative of continuous monitoring on social
development and gender equality, the first to associate both aspects in an international perspective.
Since the beginning, Social Watch has been conceived not as a new institution, but as a place for the
meeting of non-governmental organisations which operate in the field of social development and fight
against gender discrimination. Believing that it would be possible to measure the progresses in the
reaching of the goals, a tool for the presentation of statistical information available at the international
level was conceived, able to report also on the qualitative aspects of the problems. Social Watch’s
annual report was meant to become a working system able to confer power to civil society and local
communities, providing the opportunity to share national experiences and methodologies with
analogous groups at the international level. From its creation, in 1996, up to today, this place of
meeting has grown and some of its aspects have evolved. Nevertheless the main ideas and goals have
remained the same. Refer to
http://www.socialwatch.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23:rete-
flessibile&catid=25:storia&Itemid=51

265
participation enables individuals and groups to influence agency decisions in a
representational manner5
.
Participatory design is an approach to design attempting to actively involve all
stakeholders (for instance employees, partners, customers, citizens, end users) in the
design process in order to help ensure the product designed meets their needs and is
usable. The term is used in a variety of fields as software design, urban design,
architecture, landscape architecture, product design, sustainability, graphic design,
planning or even medicine as a way of creating environments that are more
responsive and appropriate to their inhabitants' and users' cultural, emotional,
spiritual and practical needs. It is one approach to place making. It has been used in
many settings and at various scales. Participatory design is an approach which is
focused on processes and procedures of design and is not a design style. For some,
this approach has a political dimension of user empowerment and democratisation6
.
Utilising a method called place performance evaluation, groups from the
community are taken on the site of proposed development, where they use their
knowledge to develop design strategies, which would benefit the community.
Whether the participants are schoolchildren or professionals, the exercise produces
dramatic results because it relies on the expertise of people who use the place every
day, or who are the potential users of the place. This successfully engages with the
ultimate idea of participatory design, where various stakeholders who will be the
users of the end product, are involved in the design process as a community7
.
5
American political scientist and sociologist Sherry Arnstein discusses eight types of participation.
Often termed as Arnstein's ladder, these are broadly categorized as: citizen power (citizen control,
delegated power, partnership); tokenism (placation, consultation, informing); non-participation
(therapy, manipulation). She defines citizen participation as the redistribution of power that enables
the have-not citizens, presently excluded from the political and economic processes, to be deliberately
included in the future. Refer to http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/wps/publication/Chapter3.htm
6
In several Scandinavian countries of the 1960s and 1970s, it was rooted in work with trade unions.
In participatory design participants (putative, potential or future) are invited to cooperate with
designers, researchers and developers during an innovation process. Potentially, they participate
during several stages of an innovation process: they participate during the initial exploration and
problem definition both to help define the problem and to focus ideas for solution, and during
development, they help evaluate proposed solutions. Major international organisations such as
Project for Public Spaces create opportunities for rigorous participation in the design and creation of
place, believing that it is the essential ingredient for successful environments. Rather than simply
consulting the public, Project for Public Spaces creates a platform for the community to participate
and co-design new areas, which reflect their intimate knowledge. Providing insights, which
independent design professionals such as architects or even local government planners may not have.
Refer to http://www.pdc2014.org
7
Similar projects have had success in Melbourne, Australia particularly in relation to contested sites,
where design solutions are often harder to establish. The Talbot Reserve in the Saint Kilda district
faced numerous problems of use, such as becoming a regular spot for sex workers and drug users to

266
Participatory design has many applications in development and changes to built
environment. It has particular value to planners and architects, in relation to place
making and community regeneration projects. It potentially offers a far more
democratic approach to the design process as it involves more than one stakeholder.
By incorporating a variety of views there seem to arise greater opportunity for
successful outcomes. Many universities and major institutions are beginning to
recognise its importance8
.
Peer-to-peer urbanism is finally a form of decentralised, participatory design for
urban environments and individual buildings. It borrows organisational ideas from
the open-source software movement, so that knowledge about construction methods
and urban design schemes is freely exchanged9
.
congregate. A project, which incorporated a variety of key users in the community about what they
wanted for the future of the reserve allowed traditionally marginalised voices to participate in the
design process. Participants described it as “a transforming experience as they saw the world through
different eyes”. This is perhaps the key attribute of participatory design, a process which allows
multiple voices to be heard and involved in the design, resulting in outcomes which suite a wider
range of users. As planning affects everyone it is believed that those whose livelihoods, environments
and lives are at stake should be involved in the decisions which affect them. Ibidem
8
Students from Columbia University in the United States, University of Sydney in Australia and
Sapienza University of Rome, Italy, were involved in one case to provide design solutions for
Canadian Vancouver’s downtown East side, which suffered from drug and alcohol related problems.
The process allowed cross-discipline participation from planners, architects and industrial designers,
which focused on collaboration and the sharing of ideas and stories, as opposed to ridged and singular
design outcomes. Many local governments particularly in Melbourne, Australia, require community
consultation in any major changes to the built environment. Community involvement in the planning
process is almost a standard requirement in most strategic changes. The city of Melbourne Swanton
Street redevelopment project received over 5,000 responses from the public allowing them to
participate in the design process by commenting on seven different design options. While the
Australian city of Yarra recently held a Stories in the Street consultation, to record people’s ideas
about the future of Smith Street. It offered participants a variety of mediums to explore their opinions
such as mapping, photo surveys and storytelling. Although local councils are taking positive steps
towards participatory design as opposed to traditional top down approaches to planning, many
communities are moving to take design into their own hands. In Portland in the United States, Oregon
City Repair Project is a form of participatory design, which involves the community co-designing
problem areas together to make positive changes to their environment. It involves collaborative
decision-making and design without traditional involvement from local government or professionals
but instead runs on volunteers from the community. The process has created successful projects such
as intersection repair, which saw a misused intersection develop into a successful community square.
Ibidem
9
http://www.grupposalingaros.net/p2p-urbanism.html

267
Overdetermination vs. Direct Involvement in Society’s Choices
Illich refers to overdeterminaton as the phenomenon by which man produces more
than what he really needs. He claims that the overproduction of goods and services
seems largely due to induced and false needs typical of Western culture. The result
of such situation is perhaps that man goes beyond Illich’s second threshold, spending
time and money to acquire things which he does not in reality need. It might be
argued that the second outcome is that man gets more and more away from his
nature, surrounding his life with artificial and useless products. By getting far from
his natural inspiration and condition, psychological, social and environmental unease
may occur. It may therefore seem fundamental to individuate those levels of goods
and services which pertain to the first Illichean’s threshold (those which undoubtedly
improve human life) and those which only complicate and impoverish from a social
and ecological point of view10
.
Natural common-pool goods are those goods, such as relational ones, which
seems to often improve human life and might be considered as a common heritage.
The first ones more in a material way, while the second ones in intangible or inner
terms. It may seem that both issues (tangible and intangible) might be ehnanced by
governments throughout the world. It does not seem, however, to be like this, since
it might be evident that in many countries basic needs are not (for many people) yet
given for granted. It might thus appear fundamental to ensure a sufficient
widespread level of common-pool resources for everyone as it might be a common
belief that everyone should be able to enjoy clean air and water, food and landscape,
for instance.
Common goods seem to be some among the founding pillars for aiming at a
paradigm of society and use of the planet more akin to nature and human nature, as
well as for avoiding catastrophes which otherwise might be foreseeable in the future.
Ricoveri claims that common goods are subsistence goods or means, which are
not merchandise and configure a social structure which is the exact opposite to that
created by the market, based on competition and not on cooperation; on interpersonal
exchange among subjects who have no relation among themselves and do not know
each other, and not instead on the exchange among individuals who through the
10
Refer to Illich, Ivan (1993) Tools For Conviviality Harper / La Convivialità Red, p. 83-84

268
exchange satisfy their needs and also establish social relations. The author argues
that in the common goods’ system, the economy does not absorb society then.
Common goods, the scholar continues, seem to be an institution which have resisted
through time overtaking the continuous attempts of enclosures and privatisation
brought forward by modernity, both because they are flexible and capable of
changing in front of environmental and technological challenges, and because they
express irrevocable human rights, self-governmental spaces and needs of cooperation
and social relation (aspects of human behaviour different and alternative to those
typical of the homo oeconomicus theorised by current orthodoxy), aspects of human
behaviour which the laws and policies of modernisation have often tried to cancel
without clearly succeeding, the author claims11
.
According to Illich, “to overdetermine the physical environment means to make it
physiologically hostile. To drawn man into well being means to chin him to the
radical monopoly. To corrupt the balance of knowledge means to transform man
into a puppet of his tools. Entangled in his air conditioned-sadness, man is castrated:
he is only left with rage, which brings him to kill or to kill himself”12
.
There might seem to arise, for the majority of the population, a need to become
aware of the fact that total costs deriving from the Western paradigm might be higher
that the benefits gained by the outcomes produced by the same model. In a vision
typical of analytical psychology, one might claim that man is induced to refuse a
society based on man himself, and accept one founded on institutions and ideologies,
which are often very distant to his true and subconscious nature. It could be,
however, that at a certain moment everyone might in general confide in one’s own
self and his subconscious nature, rather than in the authorities or so called experts
and specialists.
11
Ricoveri argues that common goods have the particular value of being and producing goods which
do not transform themselves into merchandise, because those who administer or produce those goods
(or of which they enjoy the fruits) not always dispose of that physical good which they utilise (for
instance, a field to cultivate), and they cannot sell even in the case in which they can exchange its
fruits with other communities. But to whom does that good belong then? The real answer, according
to the author, is that natural goods and ecoservices freely provided by nature should not belong to
anyone in particular, because they belong to everybody: who utilises them is only usufructuary of
them, while the village communities (today the countries) should be their keeper, or tutors. Ricoveri
explains that Marx claimed in this sense: “[...] Private property of the planet by single individuals
would appear as absurd as the private property of a man over another man. Even an entire society, a
nation, and also all the other nations of a same epoch entirely taken do not own the land. They are
only their possessors, usufructuaries, and have the duty of passing it on improved, as good patres
familias, to future generations”. Refer to Ricoveri, Giovanna (2010) Nature For Sale: Commons
Versus Commodities Pluto Press / Beni Comuni vs. Merci Jaka Book, p. 22-23
12
Refer to Illich, Ivan (1993) Tools For Conviviality Harper / La Convivialità Red, p. 87

269
References:
- Illich, Ivan (1993) Tools For Conviviality Harper / La Convivialità Red
- Participatory Design
http://www.pdc2014.org
- Peer-To-Peer Urbanism
http://www.grupposalingaros.net/p2p-urbanism.html
- Public Participation
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/wps/publication/
Chapter3.htm
- Ricoveri, Giovanna (2010) Nature For Sale: Commons Versus Commodities
Pluto Press / Beni Comuni vs. Merci Jaka Book
- Social Watch Network
http://www.socialwatch.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=
23:rete-flessibile&catid=25:storia&Itemid=51

271
18. COMMON-POOL GOODS
Who refrains from abusing every living being,
because of this he will refrain even more from harming his same species.
The greater his friendship for animals,
the greater justice he will bring to mankind.
Porphyry of Tyre (270 A.D.)
The Common-Pool Resources Model
Common-pool resources or commons are goods utilised by many individuals, which
can hardly (for different reasons) be excluded from using them. As well as this, the
consumption by one individual reduces the possibilities of use to others: common-
pool resources are generally resources without barriers of any kind and essential for
human survival and/or subject to increase along with their use. Common-pool
resources today seem to have found a new development, also on the drive of the
importance of issues such as global warming, democracy, depletion of unique
ecosystems or loss of biodiversity, just to cite a few. Common-pool resources
circulate outside of the market paradigm, through hoarding, free harvesting, sharing
or gift culture. One could claim that they in fact are non-excludable goods, namely
those goods for which it is not possible to impose a price. As well as this they are

272
partially or totally rival goods, for which there exist a risk of excessive exploitation
(let us think of the Amazon Rainforest or a fish), due to an inefficient distribution of
social rights. Even if common-pool resources present characteristics which
sometimes bring them close to other types of goods, they are different from them as
much conceptually as they are for what the problems they pose to their users are
concerned1
.
Within the theory of the commons a classification of goods into four categories is
utilised. It is built with the intersection of two variables centred on the determination
of the relation between good and users: the difficulty of exclusion of an individual
from using the good (excludability); the fact that its consumption by an individual
reduces or not the possibilities of consumption of others (rivalry)2
.
Excludable Non-Excludable
Rival PRIVATE GOODS
food, clothing, cars, personal
electronics
COMMON-POOL
RESOURCES
fish stocks, timber, coal
Non-Rival TOLL GOODS
cinemas, private parks, satellite
television
PUBLIC GOODS
free-to-air television, air, national
defence
Table 18. 1 Taxonomy of Goods’ And Services’ By Their Economic Nature – There can be found
four different categories of goods and services: private goods are rival and excludable, toll ones are
non-rival and excludable, common-pool resources are rival and non-excludable, public goods are non-
rival and non-excludable.
Public goods (by definition non-excludable and non-rival) represent one of the two
extremes of the typology presented, while at the other extreme private goods are
classified. Two intermediate cases are toll goods, characterised by low rivalry and
easiness of exclusion, and commons with high difficulty of exclusion and high
rivalry. These are not absolute categories, rather a model in which the different types
1
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicGoods.html
2
Ibidem

Outlines on environmental philosophy part 8

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to Outlines on environmental philosophy part 8

Similar to Outlines on environmental philosophy part 8 (20)

More from Steven Ghezzo

More from Steven Ghezzo (14)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Outlines on environmental philosophy part 8