Archive for the 'economy' Category



The cooperative local economy

By David Parkinson

We use the word 'weed' for plants which interfere with our plans for nature.

We use the word 'weed' for plants which interfere with our plans.

‘Tain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it,
And that’s what gets results.

(Melvin “Sy” Oliver and James “Trummy” Young)

Last week’s column was about creating a stronger local food economy, something which I spend a good deal of time thinking about (and being engaged in). And now that we have a newly-formed Transition effort starting up in Powell River, I hope that we’ll see renewed efforts to start new projects which help move us in the direction of regional self-reliance.

It’s not hard to sit around a table and brainstorm ideas for projects which would help this region adapt to peak oil, climate chaos, and the economic uncertainty that is hitting us now and showing no signs of abating. Car-sharing, carpooling, or ride-sharing networks; backyard gardening cooperatives; municipal composting; local media collectives; neighbourhood potluck and child-minding groups; campaigns to raise awareness of shopping locally; cob-building workshops; micro-hydro and wind power; barter and free exchange networks; and on and on. Ask someone who is hip to the challenges we face and you will get any number of good suggestions of how we can become more resilient, less dependent on fossil fuels and imported goods, and stronger as a community. There is no shortage of good ideas. But so far not a lot of them being implemented.

The more I think about transition planning, the more I believe that we need to see a large number of experimental projects happening. Some will succeed and others will fail. They cannot all be funded by government dollars or money from foundations and charitable organizations. Nor can they all run entirely on the goodwill and time of volunteers. We need to find ways to create small businesses out of these solutions to various problems; but we should also be creating businesses which balance entrepreneurial risk and foresight against a strong commitment to the people and the values of the surrounding community. A local economy which supplies local needs and keeps jobs and wealth in the region will also need to do its part to reduce social inequities and to provide solutions to systemic problems like poverty, food insecurity, insufficient affordable housing, the lack of a living wage, and so on. These problems are the inevitable result of an economy which places profits above all other considerations, and the sooner we stop pretending otherwise the better.

It seems clear to me that the best solutions to the challenges we face will emerge from genuinely collaborative, collectively-designed and -managed, community owned enterprises. Cooperatives provide a good way to create businesses that satisfy needs which individuals find hard to satisfy on their own, and they have the advantage that they are well recognized in provincial and federal business law. But some of the projects we might want to work on are too loose and informal for all of the hoop-jumping and legalities of a formal incorporation. There are no one-size-fits-all structures for getting people to work together so that everyone benefits.

No matter how we formalize an understanding among individuals which involves property, money, labour, rights, obligations, and regulations, we first have to get to the point of working out what it is we’re trying to accomplish and how we intend to go about it. When this is done in order to attract start-up capital it’s called a business plan, and might emerge from a collaborative process of:

  • brainstorming in free-flowing conversation;
  • identifying an unmet need in the community;
  • thinking about how we might harness cooperative energy to solve the problem we identify;
  • solving various problems of start-up costs, dealing with regulations and other legal impediments;
  • enlisting the support of people who need the planned goods/service (potential customers, collaborators, or members of a cooperative);
  • defining how those who contribute their labour and knowledge can be adequately rewarded (whether in the form of money, equity, goods, shares, etc.).

There will always be individuals with an entrepreneurial bent who are talented at identifying business opportunities and figuring out how to apply money and resources to a problem in order to find a solution which will return a profit on money invested. But as for the rest of us, we might have to get involved in cooperative business ventures with other people. And this means having to collaborate effectively, to learn how to weigh different alternatives and figure out what is possible and what is impossible, to figure out what the steps are in solving a problem and which are of a higher priority than which others, and so on.

Lately, I am witnessing a number of processes which are intended to be collaborative and cooperative. For the most part, they are not succeeding as they might. In some cases, they are downright counterproductive. Why is this? As a society, we are pretty good at identifying what we want to do, but we often struggle with how to go about accomplishing the goals we identify. (What we want to do is very often stupid or pointless or toxic, but the goal is at least clear.) Entrepreneurial management strikes me as fairly uncomplicated: do whatever it takes within the limits of the law (more or less) to make your money make more money. All other considerations are subordinate to the prime directive, profit. But cooperative management and business development entail other considerations, since they reflect a community of interests and often have a socially responsible orientation; e.g., the triple bottom line of people, planet, and profit.

We’re going to have to become better at working collaboratively in many ways as we adjust to the post-peak economy in which more of our needs will need to be met locally. I want to work together with other people to cobble together appropriate solutions to problems in the local market, and I want people to receive proper pay for their contributions to meeting the needs of the community. I want to be able to participate in cooperative decision-making in the common interest. I want to be part of starting up enterprises which can support the local economy, train and employ people in useful and necessary activities, and generate wealth which remains in the community. I imagine that many others feel the same way, but don’t know how to start collaborating (and on what?).

In next week’s conclusion of this piece, I will sketch out how we might learn a thing or twelve from David Holmgren’s principles of permaculture about creating an effective collaborative design and planning process which we can use for starting cooperatives and other small businesses in the region.

Growing the local food economy

By David Parkinson

Yarrow, one of the medicinal plants we found thriving next to the road on Brian Lee's wild plant walk

Yarrow, one of the medicinal plants we found thriving next to the road on Brian Lee's wild plant walk

This past weekend, as part of my work with the Powell River Food Security Project, I hosted something I called a “Food Skills Weekend“. This consisted of a series of workshops and talks on improving our personal and community-level self-reliance and resilience with respect to our food supply. We had one workshop on increasing our capacity to produce food in our own backyard, led by Robin Wheeler, edible landscapist extraordinaire; local canning whizzes Nicole Narbonne, Will Langlands, and Peggy Fedor presented two workshops on the basics of water-bath and pressure canning; and wild plant aficionado Brian Lee took us on a wild plant walk around Powell River to learn about some of the wild foods in our area.

Among all of that, Robin led two workshop/discussions on the importance of breaking down barriers that get between us and increased resilience. Much of this conversation consisted of talking about what prevents us — as individuals — from becoming better prepared in the home and garden, and what prevents us — as a community — from working better together to increase resilience at the level of the neighbourhood, town, district, or region.

This is a valuable and an essential conversation to be having.

When we think of becoming more food-secure in our own homes, we can think of certain assets we can work on creating:

  • a thriving garden;
  • a well-stocked pantry;
  • a kitchen where we can prepare healthy meals;

And creating each of these assets might require that we work with others in the community who can help us acquire the necessary knowledge and skills. In some cases, we might achieve economies of scale by working with others; a good example here are old-fashioned canning bees, which allow us to put large amounts of food by at one time by working together.

Community food security consists of the sum total of individual and household food security plus the sorts of resources which exist to serve larger groups within the community. Farms, farmers’ markets, buyers’ groups and cooperatives, garden-sharing networks, community dinners, food pantries and food banks… all of these are ways of organizing food security at higher levels and building resilience into the local food economy.

Many people around us are aware of the importance of food security and are concerned about the fragility of the global food supply, especially in a time of economic uncertainty. All over our region and elsewhere throughout the world, people are having conversations about how to increase their control over the food that they eat, how to create community around food, and how to develop a robust local food economy. This is a huge topic, but I want to focus here on personal and community food security, and especially on how we can start to create more initiatives which will allow us to become more self-reliant without having to spend all of our time and energy gardening, canning, and cooking.

So, what are the skills, areas of knowledge and know-how, and capacities that add up to personal food security? Let’s look at three pretty basic ones. In each case I want to briefly outline what I’m talking about and also think out loud about some of the ways we can make it easier for people to acquire the necessary skills or take advantage of other people’s skills and work.

I. The ability to produce food

This is a huge domain of knowledge, skills, and experience. It covers everything from planning a garden and selecting seeds to rotating crops, using water efficiently, building soil, choosing amendments, and many many more practical and theoretical skills. (I’m setting aside some other ways of producing food, such as foraging, hunting, and fishing.)

How can we make it easier for people?

Some people are simply unable to grow food for themselves. Maybe they lack the necessary space; or the time it takes to do all the planning, planting, weeding, watering, and so on; or they are physically unable to do some of the strenuous work. There are businesses springing up all around which use urban lots to grow food, and about as many business models as there are businesses: some grow the food for the homeowner; some use lots as urban farms and sell the produce; some are more like a Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA) model, which produce food for subscribers. (You can browse a number of these urban-farming enterprises here.)

These sorts of enterprises — whether structured as for-profit corporations, not-for-profit community initiatives, or cooperatives — are necessary because we are unlikely to find ways to free up people’s time or make them more physically able to work in the garden.

So how can we encourage more people to think of farming the city and collaborating on larger farming operations? What stands in the way? Is it simply not economically feasible? Not attractive enough as a potential business opportunity? Too much damn work for most people to even think about? Maybe there are not enough highly visible models… yet.

II. The ability to process and store food

There are many skills associated with processing and storing food, especially used when food is abundant. Canning, freezing, pickling, drying, fermenting, and root-cellaring are among these skills.

How can we make it easier for people?

Besides continuing to present workshops so that those who are experienced in these techniques can hand their knowledge on to people willing to acquire them, we need to start considering some of the real barriers that stand in the way of people doing more of this. One of the major ones is the cost of the necessary equipment and supplies as well as access to proper processing facilities; in the case of canning, this might mean the cost of a canner or pressure canner, jars, lids, and other bits of kitchen equipment. As so many people have pointed out to me, why should everyone have to own their own canner, etc.? And why should everyone have to work alone in their own kitchen processing large quantities of food? There are surely economies of scale to be realized by working together in a common kitchen, not to mention that it would be a more pleasurable activity, like an old-fashioned canning bee.

So one thing I personally want to concentrate on this summer — in collaboration with the local Fruit Tree Project — is to organize canning bees in local kitchens. We’ll need to work out the details of how people participate; people should be able to put in labour or money or some combination of the two. But the bottom line is that by working together we ought to be able to produce large quantities of properly canned food at affordable prices.

Likewise with drying food: why should everyone have to have their own dehydrator? What if we pool money to buy a good solid commercial-quality dehydrator, which people can rent space and time in? We can organize work parties to prepare food (gleaned locally or otherwise procured) and keep the costs as low as possible. And again people can choose to participate by contributing labour or money or both.

III. The ability to find, store, and prepare healthy inexpensive food

An obvious aspect of personal or household food security is knowing how to get the best food at the lowest possible prices, how to store food against rainy days or disruptions in the food supply, and how to use basic ingredients to prepare nutritious meals at a reasonable cost.

How can we make it easier for people?

This is, of course, a huge area and not likely to be successfully tackled anytime soon. Part of this involves educating people about how they can save money and eat better while supporting the local food economy as much as possible. The 50-mile diet challenge and the Open Air Market are two of the best and most visible ambassadors for healthier local eating. But we need more. One thing we could use are more cooperative food-purchasing groups or food cooperatives. Many people have no room to store frozen food, while others have huge amounts of room to spare.

As with the need to get more food produced locally, part of the problem here is simply that the global food supply is working well enough that there is no widespread perception of fragility. And by the time there is that perception, it will be late in the day to start developing these enterprises, man of which will require a long and cautious incubation period.

Creating a local food economy

I’m throwing some of these ideas out there in a casual fashion, but as a community we need to start tackling some of these if we intend to become a region where everyone is secure in his or her ability to eat well and to do so in a way which supports a strong local economy. There are all kinds of efforts out there which point in this direction, but the sky is the limit. It is impossible to have too many projects which aim to help people become more self-reliant, more able to produce and store food safely and wisely, more able to understand how to eat cheaply and well.

More and more, I understand that this is not going to happen solely as a result of not-for-profit or volunteer-based endeavours, whether government-funded (e.g., the Food Security Project which I work for, or the Food Bank), charitable (e.g., various church dinners and food pantries), or ‘shoestring’ (e.g., the Fruit Tree Project, which has no reliable funding or infrastructure). We have to start trying to develop the local food economy, with the accent on economy. There is a huge amount of critical work to be done, and too much is already happening as a result of volunteer effort. The most important thing we can do to increase food security in this region is to develop small businesses or cooperative enterprises and support each other in these efforts.

One type of enterprise I dream about is a cooperative which will bring together people who want to be as food-secure as possible. Members will contribute time, labour, money, or some combination of these. In return for their contribution, they will be subscribed to a year-round food-security service which will:

  • produce food on their behalf;
  • provide them with collective work parties where they can learn essential skills and get the benefit of their work (e.g., canning bees, sowing and weeding parties);
  • offer them significant savings on purchases of bulk staples, sourced as locally as possible;
  • work closely with local producers to create and support markets for dairy, meat, fish, grain, and other foods which require larger-scale production;
  • provide members with a library of shared tools and common food storage facilities;
  • act as a clearinghouse for information and expertise, offer workshops, etc.

As Robin pointed out in her workshops on this subject, some of the barriers to developing cooperative efforts are pretty widespread and easy to identify: lack of time, lack of trust, and often a lack of self-confidence and willingness to step forward and claim a common problem as our own and start working on it. I don’t know how to address these stumbling blocks, but clearly we need to fight against the isolation that keeps us all in our own personal silos working on our own personal problems and failing to draw the connecting lines between my garden and your freezer, between her farm and our canning bee, between our buyers’ group and their community dinner.

I think we’ll get there in due time, but if anyone out there wants to start working towards these goals now, contact me.

Slow the economy!

By David Parkinson

Beautiful, practical, self-regenerating, self-regulating... the natural economy is everything the human-made one is not.

Beautiful, practical, self-regenerating, self-regulating... the natural economy is everything the human-made one is not.

The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise… economics is a form of brain damage.
(Hazel Henderson)

The economy is falling apart. Why? When will it hit bottom? Can we get back to normal?

I don’t want to get back to normal. The economy which surrounds us, and which we accept as inevitable — although it isn’t — is a shambles. Even when it’s operating as it’s supposed to, it produces endless amounts of waste, destruction, and misery. And the smart-ass comeback to complaints like this is supposed to be something along the lines of “Well, let’s see you do better”, or “But the only alternative is communism, and look how that turned out”, or similar platitudes.

The fact of the matter, as far as I’m concerned, is that what we call ‘the economy’ is best seen as a huge and sprawling system of social networks which dictate how wealth is created, stored, and transferred. The economy is intimately connected to a similarly huge and sprawling  political system which determines how power is created and deployed. Political power roughly means the ability to make decisions about who gets what share of wealth created in the economic system and always comes backed up with a monopoly on the use of violence to enforce its decisions.

The people who are attracted to power — which is to say, the people who enjoy being on the inside, in the backrooms where the real decisions are made — end up being the people in charge of deciding how the economy is configured. And so naturally the economy becomes a tool for consolidating their power. If that sounds like a conspiracy theory, try to imagine how it could work out any other way. You don’t need a conspiracy to make the inevitable happen; you just need time. It’s a simple recognition of the truth of political power. Economist John Kenneth Galbraith, in his 1983 book The Anatomy of Power, describes three types of power:

  • compensatory power, which asserts itself by purchasing submission;
  • condign power, which asserts itself through violence or the threat of violence;
  • conditioned power, which asserts itself through persuasion.

According to Galbraith, power originates with personality, property, or organization. So, for example, the power of a government is expressed largely as condign and conditioned power, since it has the ability to threaten to punish those who go against its wishes (the wishes of a government are called ‘laws’), and it uses conditioned power in the form of patriotism, allegiance to local norms and ‘decent behaviour’, and so on.

But a government also expresses its power — to be more precise, the power of those who control that government — in the form of compensatory power. Access to power is access to the rules by which wealth is generated. And therefore, without serious checks and balances, this is a classic positive feedback loop: those who have the power to determine how the economy functions can steer it to their advantage, thereby creating more wealth and more power for themselves. Again, not a conspiracy theory so much as an honest observation of the how the world works.

What we’re seeing lately, in the ongoing implosion of the economy, is that some of the more interesting and creative ways for wealthy and powerful individuals and groups to turn wealth into even more wealth were simply bogus. And as time goes on, we see the extent to which governments were colluding in this fictional economy. I don’t find it very useful to consider the government as separate from the corporations and other parts of the economy: increasingly over the last few years the two have merged more and more. Governments are really the public-relations and enforcement sector of an all-encompassing economy which takes everything in and leaves less and less space for people to live simply, according to ancient and honourable traditions. The right to gather and produce food and plant medicines is hemmed in by laws and regulations which are supposedly there to protect us, but which always end up favouring large centralized corporate interests. (As if by accident.)

Even worse, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the preferred solution to this potential catastrophe is simply more of the same. As long as the people who stood to gain from this massive fraud are the same people who control the mechanisms of condign state power, there will be no real punishment, no stock-taking, no accountability. Ask yourself: if you were powerful, would you allow the law to come down on your head just for doing what everyone else is doing? Not bloody likely.

And the real problem is that even when the economy is working it’s a nightmare for much of the planet. Everyone knows that we are devastating natural systems like fish stocks and aquifers. Everyone knows that human activity, much of it frivolous, contributes vastly to greenhouse gases. Everyone knows that species are going extinct at ever greater rates. Everyone knows that the food supply is threatened by climate change, changes in weather patterns, and disruptions often caused by wars and other man-made conflict. Everyone knows that we are in danger of running out of easily extracted fossil fuels, which will be simultaneously a tragedy and a godsend. The scale of human activity cannot be sustained by the natural world.

And meanwhile, as always, there is a smaller and quieter economy ticking away, doing what it does in harmony with its natural surroundings. Wendell Berry has a lovely essay about this where he refers to the ‘Great Economy’, by which he means the Kingdom of God, although he observes that other notions such as the Tao cover the same meaning. He makes the point that we can never hope to create a truly lasting human economy which does not respect the laws and ways of the Great Economy. Berry points to five principles of the Great Economy:

  1. Completeness: “It includes everything; in it, the fall of every sparrow is a significant event”;
  2. Orderliness: “Everything in the Kingdom of God is joined both to it and to everything else that is in it”;
  3. Ineffability: “Humans do not and can never know either all the creatures that the Kingdom of God contains or the whole pattern or order by which it contains them”;
  4. Autonomy (in the literal sense of creating and obeying its own laws): “Though we cannot produce a complete or even adequate description of this order, severe penalties are in store for us if we presume upon it or violate it”;
  5. Infinitude: “We cannot foresee an end to it”.

I believe that many people, and more all the time, are starting to understand that we cannot continue to tinker at the margins of an unsustainable economy, serving the needs of a blind and swinish political culture. We need to work our way back to the fundamental principles of sustainability, only now we must do this as a conscious choice, and against powerful forces in the political and economic systems. And a genuinely sustainable society must revolve around a genuinely sustainable economy, and that economy must rest on principles as lofty and as all-encompassing as Berry’s. Sorry, but that’s just the way it’s gotta be now.

Traditional cultures lived according to Berry’s notion of a Great Economy because they had no choice; they respected the implacable laws of the world because not to do so meant needless suffering and death. We have created an economy which is the wonder of human evolution, which makes possible unimaginable technical feats, which is able to reduce and in some cases eliminate deadly diseases, hunger, and the other traditional sources of human misery. But the downside of these advances is the massive over-consumption of resources; the buildup of toxic wastes which threatens our air, water, and food; worsening resource wars; famine; poverty; early and preventable death. Our technical abilities are amazing, but we have no clear sense how to use them to advance the cause of all life on earth.

We have been faced all along with tough choices, but we haven’t had to recognize them as choices. We didn’t know that we could choose not to pull all the oil out of the earth’s crust and burn it up. We didn’t know that we could choose not to build cities in deserts and bring water in from hundreds of miles away, depleting watersheds and draining aquifers. We didn’t know that we could choose not to covert forests to grasslands to monocultured farms in order to produce more meat than was healthy for us or for the planet. Etc. Well, some of these choices are becoming clear in retrospect; and we will always be faced with future choices. Perhaps we can start to recognize them for what they are, and not blindly rush into anything that looks likely to make the powerful more powerful and the wealthy more wealthy.

How can we get from here to there? How can we create a functioning local economy which takes advantage of our increased technical abilities and yet does not endanger all life on earth? How ca we learn to recognize real choices and decide wisely?

Of course, I don’t have the answers to those questions. I’ll do my best to think through them in future columns, and I’ll report on some of the cutting-edge thinking going on out there. My personal preference is to look for answers in the last places where the technocrats and bureaucrats and well-paid consultants would have us look: in the practices of traditional cultures; in the pasts of the various cultures which make up North American industrial society; in the odd corners of the alternative universe where things like permaculture and gift economies are slowly but surely proving their worth as ways of organizing human labour and creativity and producing genuine (not phantasmagorical and life-destroying) wealth.

It’s funny (if you like gallows humour) to see so much fuss and fervour about sustainability these days, as though this is something that only we — the highly evolved citizens of the greatest society ever known — could have devised; when in fact it is this culture which has devised the need to talk about sustainability as though it is something to be added onto what one already does, like a condiment for industrial capitalism to make it yummier and more healthful. And that is because it is we who have strayed from the path of human history by inventing and practicing unsustainability on a massive scale, making it synonymous with prosperity, and letting it spread throughout the world like a virus.

The elements of resilience

By David Parkinson
(Updated April 16, 2009 & April 20, 2009)

Western Skunk Cabbage: spreads underground, produces heat to melt away the snow, uses its odour to attract pollinators in order to ensure its reproduction. Edible, useful, and beautiful.

Western Skunk Cabbage: spreads underground, produces heat to melt away the snow, uses its odour to attract pollinators in order to ensure its reproduction. Edible, useful, and beautiful.

The future — the sustainable future where we survive will not be created by those who invented the world we have just lost and are reluctantly giving it up, while salvaging as much of their privilege from the ruins as they can. It will be invented by people who have only each other to lose and understand that, in the coming era of chaos, collapse, and reconstruction, we will find support, security, comfort, and solutions within the context of communities — on the ground, online, overlapping, and emerging.
(Chip Ward, from the introduction to “After the Green Economy, Green Security: How to Build Resilient Communities in a Chaotic World“)

In an earlier post, I talked a little bit about resilience and why I see this as an even more important goal than sustainability. I believe that the work that lies ahead of us consists of finding ways to grow back some of the resilience we have lost over the past half-century or so.

The economy we have right now is very fragile. We can see this in the collapse of some of its largest institutions and sectors: banks, insurers, real estate, car manufacturers, and the stock market. Closer to home, we see the slow and steady collapse of the forestry industry. We keep hearing that these sectors are “too big to fail” when what we should be saying is “too big to be allowed to fail”. And the solution to these failures? Throw more money at the problems and hope that that will somehow fix the underlying sickness causing supposedly robust and central pillars of the economy to fall apart. If you think that we can pay or pray our way out of systemic failure, then I envy you. I don’t think it’s going to be so easy.

I think a lot about this “too big to fail” syndrome in the context of our food system. Thanks to cheap fossil fuels and centralized production, processing, and distribution, we in North America have a food system which is the envy of the rest of the world. Our supermarket shelves are piled high with products of all kinds from everywhere on the planet. We can eat just about anything we want at any time. Obesity is more of a problem than starvation.

But the hidden downside of this abundance is an increasingly fragile system dependent on a continuing supply of fossil fuels for fertilizer, machinery, transportation, processing, refrigeration, and more transportation to the nearest supermarket. None of this would be possible without an ever-shrinking number of players in the food game: huge multinational conglomerates which control many steps in the food chain from seed supply to packaging. These corporations are becoming “too big to fail”, but there is no reason to think that their growth can be sustained for very much longer.

I believe, as a matter of principle, that control over our food supply should be in the people’s hands as much as possible. And I believe that we have surrendered too much control to corporations which do not have our interests at heart. Before the situation becomes an emergency, we need to take back as much control as possible.

Luckily, many people here and elsewhere are working hard to rebuild local food economies in communities all around the world, and to push back gently but firmly against total corporate control of the food supply. There are all kinds of efforts around here, from the Open Air Market to the 50-mile diet challenge to backyard gardening to canning, mixed farming, permaculture, and plenty of other good and important work. Everyone involved in these little efforts will admit that we have a long way to go before we have a truly resilient local food economy, but they are doing their part towards that goal.

So, what I’d like to do is think a little about some of the features of a resilient system, using a local food economy as an example. These are some of the goals we should be aiming for in the region; the details of how we achieve these goals are less important than keeping the image of resilience in mind as we start to develop new projects and new ways of producing, processing, preserving, preparing, and sharing food locally. (These aspects of resilience are in no particular order.)

Diversity

The local food economy contains many parts and performs many functions.
Example: Food is being produced in backyard gardens, neighbourhood gardens, community gardens, cooperative kitchens and canning facilities, market gardeners, mixed farmers, and specialized operations (greenhouses, orchards, vineyards, livestock, etc.). Knowledge about producing, processing, and preparing healthy locally-available food is widespread throughout the region.
Result: The local food economy provides adequately for local needs and is able to withstand serious shocks and disruptions without immediately leading to panic, hoarding, and hunger. People can afford to eat very well under normal circumstances, and can continue to eat under adverse circumstances.

Dispersion

The parts of the local food economy are spread around geographically and permeate many sectors of the community.
Example: Every neighbourhood has resources which supply people with local food, whether it’s a farm gate, cooperative, food store, community kitchen, or whatever. Specialized sectors of the community such as churches, schools, social clubs, etc. have their own pieces of the local food economy which serve the needs of that sector. All ages, ethnicities, and people with special dietary needs or wants are well served.
Result: Everyone is woven into the local food economy and can easily access the food and information they need to eat well.

Redundancy

Each function of the local food economy is performed by more than one part of the system.
Example: Canning happens in the home, in neighbourhood groups, commercially on the small scale as well as on the larger scale (possibly for export outside the region).
Result: If one part of the food economy gets knocked out, there are many others still performing its functions.

Multifunctionality

Each part of the local food economy performs more than one function.
Example: Neighbourhood groups can come together to exchange knowledge; pool resources to purchase, produce, or process food in bulk; create cooperative business opportunities; provide healthy meals for low-income people; tend each other’s gardens; and so on.
Result: No parts of the local food economy are putting all their eggs in one basket, and can easily adapt to changes in local needs, productive capacity, and shifts in the market.

Adaptability

Parts of the local food economy are able to change their functions and goals quickly.
Example: Small, inexpensive, easily replicated experiments proliferate throughout the region, testing out new methods in food production, processing, and preservation. Growers and processors are more easily able to shift their output towards the more lucrative or necessary ones.
Result: The local food economy is cushioned against disruption or rapid shifts in supply or demand; fewer business failures.

Non-hierarchy

As much as possible, parts of the local food economy connect to each other as equals.
Example: Producers’ cooperatives and other less formal groups work together to  maximize productive output and ensure a fair price for goods; consumers’ cooperatives work to support local producers and provide high-quality food at affordable prices. Barter among and within these cooperatives takes the form of food, labour, or other goods or services.
Result: People have a high degree of control over the local food economy. Every part of the local food economy succeeds to some extent when one part succeeds; no one player becomes “too big to fail”.

Openness

Information circulates quickly and freely among the parts of the local food economy.
Example: New techniques and labour- or cost-saving devices are shared or bartered. The common good is respected and recognized as an essential part of a resilient regional economy. Anyone can involve themselves where their skills or interest are most needed.
Result: Everyone can understand how their food is produced and prepared and how it gets to the table. The local food system is not a mystery.

This fairly abstract overview just scratches the surface of resilience and how it might play out in our local food economy. The bottom line is that we need to shift our whole way of thinking, talking, and planning for the future of this region. Continuing to rely on a relatively small number of producers and retailers is dangerous; the danger may not be acute now, but the global food supply shows no signs of becoming more resilient — and how can it? It’s another top-heavy, centralized, hierarchical system consisting of a huge number of highly specialized companies hooked together in a non-flexible way. We need to be doing what we can now to move away from reliance on that system. As E.F. Schumacher famously said, “Small is beautiful“.

Unfortunately, we tend to seek a privatized market solution to every problem we recognize. And that works in some cases, but not in all. We need to create more opportunities for non-corporatized solutions based on barter, local currencies, and the free exchange of goods and services in a gift economy. These may sound like crazy ideas right now, but large-scale capitalism itself is looking increasingly like a crazy idea. A system based on giving profit to private corporations and individuals while sticking the public with the risks and the consequences of pollution and environmental devastation can only go on for so long. It’s brittle and top-heavy and prone to catastrophic and widespread failures. As it winds down we’re going to need proper working models to take over its functions and provide for human needs and desires. These models will naturally be more resilient and we can work hard to design even more resilience into them. In future posts I’ll look at local seeds of resilience that we can expand and connect to other parts of the economy, and at real-world models of resilience that we could adapt to our needs in this region.

Update (April 16, 2009): This post from John Robb’s Global Guerrillas blog discusses another characteristic of resilience, which he calls scale invariance:

Essentially, scale invariance means that across all scaling factors (large, medium, small, tiny, etc.), the properties that define the whole are conserved (intelligence, mobility, form, productivity, etc.).

This is the missing piece in the argument that resilience needs to be built up at every level: not just that of the region, in our case, but from the individual on up through the household/family, peer group, neighbourhood, and so on. Only by having resilient individuals and families and other smaller groupings can you achieve genuine resilience at the higher levels we usually think of as most important (because those are the levels at which we elect people who we pretend are fully responsible for our well-being).

Update (April 20, 2009): Jamais Cascio, of the Open the Future blog, has a little article in the May/June 2009 issue of Foreign Policy magazine in which he lays out some of the differences between sustainability and resilience.

It’s ba-ack

By Denise Reinhardt

North Harbour and Millennium Park: Should we borrow $7.43 million? Who gets to decide?

Democracy is in trouble again in Powell River. Last November, City voters approved the borrowing of $1.43 million for the land under Millennium Park and $6.0 million to rehabilitate the North Harbour. The Municipal Finance Authority is the provincial agency that sells bonds for capital projects like these, and we might think that the City could just go to the MFA and borrow the money, after its citizens agreed to the borrowing.

Not so fast. Under the rules of the MFA, Regional Districts must consent to a municipality’s borrowing, so the City needs the Regional Board’s guarantee for the borrowing of the combined $7.43 million. The City asked the Regional Board to issue the standard “security issuing bylaw” containing that consent, and the bylaw was on the agenda at the last Board meeting, without any previous discussion by the Board. At that meeting, the bylaw was referred to the Board’s Committee of the Whole for discussion and it will probably be sent back to the formal Board meeting for action on April 23rd.

There, the security issuing bylaw will probably pass, because the City’s two directors can outvote the five rural directors. If the City defaults on either or both of the loans, the rural citizens of the Regional District will be on the hook for up to $7.43 million for these projects without ever having the chance to say yes or no to the borrowing. And the voices of caution in these times of financial uncertainty may never be heard, except at two upcoming meetings of the Regional Board.

How is this possible that the City can outvote the rural areas?  Because the provincial rules established for Regional Board voting say so. In the Powell River Regional District, there are five rural directors, from:

  • Area A, north of town;
  • Area B, immediately south of town;
  • Area C, south of Area B to Saltery Bay;
  • Area D, Texada Island; and
  • Area E, Lasqueti Island.

The City has two municipal directors who sit on the Board. For many matters, the votes are unweighted. But for some issues, chiefly decisions on money matters, votes are weighted. City directors only vote on matters that affect the whole Regional District, including the City, as this security issuing bylaw does.

The weight of votes is based on “voting units” of up to 2,000 people here in Powell River. So, because Area C has over 2,000 voters, its director gets two votes. All the other rural directors get only one vote because they all represent areas with fewer than 2,000 people in them. The rural directors thus have a total of six votes. The City’s population of over 13,000 gives the City directors seven votes. So, unlike in most Regional Districts, one municipality can determine the financial health of taxpayers of the whole Regional District.

In contrast with City taxpayers, the taxpayers of the Regional District will not have a vote on whether they want the Regional District to borrow almost $7.5 million. There is little opportunity for public debate. Still, Regional District taxpayers will most likely end up as guarantors of this huge amount of borrowing.

Many of us think that there are open questions about the City’s projects. The City has not given the Regional District any North Harbour business case or forecast of the users they assume will pay moorage fees to cover debt service on the $6.0 million loan. Some of us see the North Harbour venture as an updated version of a cargo cult — if the City builds it, they will come from Alberta and dock their big boats. But when desirable moorage is going begging in Nanaimo, a harbour that is far friendlier to the boating community, why exactly would people come here? What are the predictions of North Harbour use when people are losing jobs and investment funds at record rates, and no one says that recovery is near? Is building our local economy on carbon-spewing power-boat tourism a good contribution to sustainability?

We are living in most uncertain financial times. The MFA model was developed in times of steady growth of our economy. Under MFA shared liability, if the City defaults, the debt belongs to Regional District property taxpayers. If the Regional District defaults, then the debt belongs to all BC property taxpayers. That means that we should think about big borrowing in context of existing debt and financial outlook. Locally, the Regional District’s existing MFA debt for 2008 was $556,222 and the City’s was $3,554,464, for a total of $4,110,686. The City’s principal, $158,836, and interest, $234,746, will total $391,584 due from taxpayers for 2009. Regional District taxpayers will pay $82,660 for MFA debt in 2009, almost evenly divided between principal and interest.

The Regional Hospital Board, which covers the same area as the Regional District, also is already carrying debt that we all must pay. Additionally, it has committed city and rural taxpayers to pay back a loan of $18 million, as its share of the construction of the facility to replace Olive Devaud. The north side taxpayers will be paying for over $800,000 for a new fire hall. Is this really the time to take on whopping new debt?

We also need to look beyond our parochial interests. The MFA has top ratings from investors’ services, because the liability for loans is spread throughout the province and the risk to lenders to the MFA has historically been low. High ratings mean money is available to the MFA at low interest rates, which it can pass on the its borrowers. But there are rumblings in the financial community that the MFA’s paper could be downgraded, because of the concentration of two-thirds of debt to the MFA in Metro Vancouver and TransLink and the overall financial state of BC, Canada and the world. This could lead to higher interest rates throughout the province, and therefore higher property taxes.

What is more, even the MFA admits that our current financial situation is unprecedentedly bad. Just because there has never been a default on an MFA loan does not mean there never will be one, especially as the financial future looks so bleak. The MFA can raise provincial property taxes to cover an actual municipal or Regional District default or even a threatened default. We may end up paying for all that Lower Mainland debt. Perhaps it is time to ask whether an overheated economy has led us already to overextend our borrowing. Shouldn’t we, like consumers everywhere, be thinking about reining in our debt?

We have two last chances to speak out on this borrowing. The Regional District’s Committee of the Whole can discuss this new borrowing in the context of the entire financial situation, including existing debt and the economic forecasts of no growth or “negative growth”, as well as consider other important questions. The Regional Board will take the formal vote on the security issuing bylaw. That vote should not be a rubber stamp. We can tell the Committee of the Whole and the Regional Board whether we think it is wise or sensible to borrow $7.43 million for these projects now, and bear witness to what the Board members do.

If you think you might want to speak at either or both of these meetings, you can ask to be a delegation by calling (604) 483 3231.

Committee of the Whole: Thursday April 16, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Regional District Offices, 5776 Marine, Townsite (Powell River)
(parking at the rear via Birch Street)

The meeting room holds very few people. If the Regional District thinks that many people may attend, they may move the meeting location, so check at (604) 483 3231 to be sure.

Regional Board: Thursday April 23, 2009 at 7:30 PM
City Hall Council Chambers, 6910 Duncan St., Powell River

See you there.

Preparing for Triple-E

By Tom Read

Rob Diggon, of the Texada Salmon Society, shows a group of Texada kids how to check a fish-trap as part of monitoring salmon populations on island creeks. This photo was taken last August during the Kids Saving Earth Eco Day Camp (see Tom’s Texada Journal for August 2008).

Rob Diggon, of the Texada Salmon Society, shows a group of Texada kids how to check a fish-trap as part of monitoring salmon populations on island creeks. This photo was taken last August during the Kids Saving Earth Eco Day Camp (see Tom’s Texada Journal for August 2008).

As I mentioned in a previous post, “On becoming a localist,” it’s becoming clearer to many of us that economic, energy and environmental “issues” are converging into an ever-tightening squeeze on the whole world, including our idyllic island; now is the time for personal and community preparations. This post sets out a few basic assumptions about why Texadans, as individuals and as a community, should plan to adapt to a future that may look quite different from the present.

Here on Texada Island, we see unmistakable warnings of rising economic stress — another round of quarry layoffs, pricier cost-of-living, falling real estate prices, investment portfolio losses affecting many folks including those who thought they had “retired.” We’re uneasy about the unprecedented volatility in oil and gas prices, wondering when, not if, the cost of gasoline, diesel, heating oil, propane and even firewood will shoot up again. And the weather: extremes are becoming the new “normal” everywhere — including our recent local bout with excessive snow and cold, the likes of which Texadans hadn’t seen since 1964. My shorthand name for this multi-pronged predicament is “Triple-E,” for simultaneous Economic, Energy and Environmental challenges.

Islanders know about being prepared to meet our own needs in an emergency. For example, Texada’s official emergency preparedness plan merely states the obvious when it informs us that rural households should expect to be on their own for awhile when a regional emergency occurs. This “everybody for himself” emergency plan merely reflects the reality that our local government lacks the resources to provide relief during a widespread emergency. Meanwhile, the provincial and federal governments would surely have other priorities during a widespread emergency, such as helping major population centres grapple with meeting their basic needs. It’s the same with the Triple-E situation: we’re on our own.

Fortunately, the Triple-E predicament isn’t an immediate disaster like an earthquake, so there’s no panic about it — yet. Relatively few Texadans have lost their incomes so far, but based on conversations I’ve had with many friends and neighbours, there are growing concerns about the future economic and social well-being of our island community. Could such concerns translate into organized local preparations for coping with economic contraction, energy instability and climate change? Perhaps, but first we would have to overcome the inertia of business-as-usual and its stultifying twin, the mystical hope that global economic recovery will magically begin in a matter of months, or at the very latest sometime next year.

For now, the economic recovery delusion seems driven by a massive media spotlight on Canadian, US and other governments’ economic stimulus spending plans. What happens, I wonder, if the unlikely miracle of economic stimulus plans doesn’t work?

Not to overdo the gloom and doom thing, but it’s just common sense to realize that there really is no “solution” to global economic contraction, or unstable energy prices based ultimately on finite resources, or accelerating global climate change, let alone all three happening at the same time. We can only adapt to these changing situations.

Thus, it’s up to us as individual households, as informal networks of friends and neighbours, and as a small rural island community, to decide how we will best meet our own basic needs. It won’t happen because of some consultant-driven, top-down “regional sustainability plan,” or a change in the balance of power in Victoria, Ottawa or Washington, DC. Instead, we should have faith in ourselves, and start talking more openly about how we can help each other survive the unfolding Triple-E crisis.

In some ways we’ve already started to do this on Texada. Texadans are becoming more involved in gardening, animal husbandry, beekeeping and learning about our island’s history and ecology. There’s even more carpooling and mutual aid among extended families and neighbours. Without formal announcement or fanfare, quiet networks of islanders seem to be evolving in response to the worrisome news from beyond our shores. At the moment I don’t have charts and graphs of hard data to back up these statements, but I can think of many examples. For me, it all adds up to a gut feeling that we’ve got ourselves a healthy trend toward increasing local self-reliance.

In future posts I’ll take a closer look at how Texada is beginning to evolve toward greater sustainability, and imagine different scenarios that could hold real promise for successful local adaptation to the uncertain times ahead.

« Previous Page


Post facto

June 2012
M T W T F S S
« May    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

slow tweets…

Creative Commons License
The content of this blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.5 Canada License.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.