Compeerism solves food insecurity—uniquely good for the global periphery

Hannes, Professor of Geography at the University of West Georgia. “Contending With the Limits of Our Natural World.” From Capital to Commons: Exploring the Promise of a World Beyond Capitalism. University of Bristol. Pp 127-130. /LJS

The efforts to establish CSAs and food sovereignty, just noted, highlight the second major and interconnected challenge to a DG-FL model, that is, making commons-oriented agricultural production economically viable once land has been secured. Indeed, it is only through the competitiveness of alternative, compeerist-oriented farms that the envisioned DG-FL transition could begin to take hold. As we will see, the answer to the question of viability, as in previous sectors we have explored, once again hinges on making the most of available commons-based resources (especially in the digital realm); pursuing boundary-commoning initiatives; and collaboratively working to create a more supportive political-economic environment for compeerist food production. Turning first to the digital commons, noted earlier as a promising factor for expanding yields within more generative forms of agriculture, we can begin by pointing to the tremendous potential in simply opening up global channels for the exchange of farming know-how. Studies have shown the tremendous impact that knowledge exchange can have on small farmers’ success and the important role information technology can play in facilitating this process (Zhang et al, 2016). Such exchanges, furthermore, are particularly valuable in more generative forms of farming, which is especially knowledge intensive due to the numerous geographically specific ecosystem interactions that must be taken into account. The need for cutting-edge academic research to be made available within an open access, global digital repository, as noted in Chapter 2, also becomes apparent here. Beyond information/knowledge sharing, however, the digital commons also offer significant openings for tapping into more affordable production-boosting tools and machines (Giotitsas, 2019). Along similar lines to the Open Source Ecology project noted in prior chapters, the Farm Hack initiative sees itself as ‘a community of users and organizations joining together to build a collaborative platform for developing and sharing tools of all kinds, in the name of open knowledge sharing and resilient agricultural systems’ (Farm Hack, 2016, np). Farm Hack maintains an extensive tool design inventory that anyone can contribute to, use, alter, and distribute. Examples of tools include a bicycle-powered fanning mill, a solar-powered off-grid pasture-monitoring system, and an online software platform to assist in planning and managing a farm. The management dimension just noted is worth emphasizing, since so much of what makes a local farm successful lies beyond production, from effective operational administration to establishing the many linkages needed to find buyers. Regarding this latter point, it is important to recognize that there is a great deal of networking involved, for instance, in assembling all the right actors for a successful CSA initiative or farmers market. Consequently, there are several commons-based digital solutions being pursued on this front. One good example is that of Open Food Network, a globally linked group of commoners committed to fostering ‘a sustainable and resilient food system’ by establishing a free, open-source software platform that links intentional farmers to various types of buyers through online networks and markets (OFN, 2022, np). A further area of research and design that is especially hard to come by in the digital commons pertains to GMO technology. For compeerists interested in pursuing this potential within more generative forms of agriculture, a primary aim is to create a collaborative, open-source effort in which the process and product of such efforts are made available to the digital commons. Important initiatives along these lines are already being explored, as with the Australia-based Centre for the Application of Molecular Biology to International Agriculture (CAMBIA). CAMBIA’s biological open-source project is centred on fostering a network of participants (including private, governmental, and civil-society actors) interested in developing collaborative technological innovations along free open-source software principles (Benkler, 2006). Particular attention here is paid to the need to bridge the gaps in technological access – often maintained by big-capital’s proprietary patents – that block lower-budgeted, local farmers from the many innovations in molecular biology. In considering the value of these various digital resources in the pursuit of a DG-FL transition, however, we must return to what we have seen to be a central component in compeerism’s tactical outlook in contending with capital, namely the establishment of peer-property licensing regimes. While some of the examples of agriculturally relevant digital value just covered would be of limited use to Big Ag operators, others clearly could have broader market implications. By pursuing protections in this latter realm, compeerists can strive to gain a broader foothold in the agricultural sector of the economy. Targeted peer-property licenses could be applied, for instance, to ensure that a commons-sourced GMO seed that is particularly adept at thriving in dry conditions, or cutting-edge software for real-time soil analysis, is intentionally managed, with free access made conditional on either being a subsistence farmer or having embraced certain commonsbased principles. In this way, if such peer-licensed resources significantly expanded, compeerist-aligned farmers would maintain privileged access to tools that both increased their yields and decreased their operating costs, giving them an important market advantage in relation to their capital oriented counterparts. Yet, the compeerist-aligned farmers’ boundary-commoning options are not just limited to the digital, there are many more solidaristic endeavours that could be instrumental in securing viability, including the collaborative arrangement of low-interest loans and the pooling of physical resources, such as the local sharing of land and expensive machinery. To help in such efforts, formal compeerist-aligned cooperatives could be formed. These could then also be employed to better control input and product prices, as well as make unified political demands. Agricutural cooperatives are, of course, already a well-established institution, but in the Minority World these generally represent large-scale, capital-oriented farmers pursuing the expansion of market share within a particular sector (such as Land O’Lakes and Sunkist in the US). In the Majority World, however, there are a number of examples where such cooperatives are employed to empower the oftexploited small-scale farmer. The Indian Amul milk cooperative is a case in point; co-owned by over 3.5 million dairy producers, this massive co-op shows that it is indeed possible to productively organize an immense number of small-scaled farmers to great effect (Somjee and Somjee, 1978). Importantly, the desirability of choosing a commons-oriented approach to farming increases as the benefits of boundary commoning expand. Currently, many farmers engaged in corporately controlled, industrial agriculture are not in a particularly happy place. The control exerted from higher up the Big Ag complex, and the demand for continuous and often risky investments, are resented by many farmers who feel they have no alternative but to comply. Relatedly, more and more farmers are frustrated by their diminishing self-sufficiency, which is a deep-seated value in farming communities. The reason for this loss can be linked to the ever-expanding role of intellectual property, applied to everything from seeds to the software running the farming equipment (Rotz et al, 2019). Indeed, farmers can increasingly be added to the hacking community as they collectively resist the corporate repair monopoly by finding ways around the proprietary protections placed on the digital innards of their tractors and other machines. In light of these conditions, it is therefore conceivable that farmers could be tempted by a viable commons-oriented alternative (Kuipers, 2021). As with digital value production and manufacturing, however, in agriculture we must also acknowledge that extensive boundary-commoning efforts are unlikely to be sufficient in achieving thriving compeerist-aligned economies. In the Minority World, in particular, food production is characterized by a state-sponsored context that explicitly favours extractive, profit-seeking, industrial farms. As such, a reorientation of government priorities is critically needed. Keeping our focus on the Minority World, there are many policies that could be pushed for in this effort. First, the subsidization of agriculture, which is already broadly established, would need to be restructured so that support did not overwhelmingly and unjustly favour the largest and most industrial operations (Gordon, 2021). Then, and more proactively, extra monetary incentives could be directed to the production and consumption of sustainably farmed goods, while targeted regulations and fees could be imposed to ensure any environmental externalities involved in food production are reflected in the final price. The ability to engage in small and microscale, community-focused farming, in turn, could also be facilitated by offering concrete resources, like targeted, low-interest loans, preferred access to affordable leases on viable government land, and high quality and well-endowed extension services. Relatedly, demands could be made that agricultural research within government funded institutions focus more on sustainable, open-source agriculture that is aimed at serving community needs, not just global trade. More education and outreach on commons-based agriculture would also be beneficial, especially if accompanied by trusted certification and labelling programmes – administered at no cost to the farmers – that informed users/consumers about the sourcing of their food, with a particular focus on environmental and humane practices. A final move that could be immensely beneficial to the compeerist agricultural cause is abandoning one-size-fits-all regulations on the production, processing, and selling of food, which is often drafted by corporate interests in a way to burden small-scale competitors (Carson, 2009a). Instead, more nuanced arrangements could be pursued in which localized, small-scale agricultural producers maintain their own, distinct guidelines. In this way – following the food sovereignty movement’s demands – rules and regulations targeting small-scale community-oriented farmers could be largely decentralized, allowing leeway for local communities and even farmer-buyer relationships to play a bigger role in determining a farmer’s restrictions and responsibilities.