Open Space Technology at Civicus 2010

This blog was written,  by me, for,  and originally posted on,  the Civicus World Assembly Blog.

This year at the Civicus World Assembly, in addition to sessions that involved detailed presentations, there were three days - three afternoons from 2-5 - that were devoted to sessions with very generalized titles and that were conducted using Open Space Technology. This is not "technology" in the sense of computing, phones, tweeting or Web 2.0 generally, but is a very simple democratic facilitation technique (very "low tech" in fact. )

Open Space Technology is a facilitation method that has no structure, within a defined set of rules. I have seen it work amazingly well but I think it did not work well (although it was done very well) at the Civcus Assembly, for a number of reasons. There were three Open Space groups and my experience is based only on one; the other groups may have had more cohesion and better/more satisfying outcomes. . .

According to Open Space World

In Open Space meetings, events and organizations, participants create and manage their own agenda of parallel working sessions around a central theme of strategic importance, such as: What is the strategy, group, organization or community that all stakeholders can support and work together to create?

Usually, in my limited experience, with Open Space, the participants create the agenda, and the questions, based around a shared or mutual interest in the outcome – for instance – every one works for the same organization and wants to maximize profits, or increase impact, or improve service. In my experience, it does not work well when the outcome, that we want to achieve, is a weak or vague vision, or so large that the people in the group cannot take control of the strategies that need to be implemented to achieve the desired outcomes.

So my group was titled: Reconciling economic development, the fight against poverty and climate justice: what and how can civil society contribute?

The first day the room was full. I am guessing, perhaps more than 50-60 people were in the room, maybe more (I never thought to count). We had some opening remarks from Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director of Greenpeace International and Past General Secretary of Civicus, that were appropriately directed to the question of how the three things were related and how they intersect. I was excited. I definitely see tensions between these three – not outright hostility just a question of priorities. If you are busy trying to get the world to cut down on carbon, or save the ocean, or get rid of cars, in order to save the planet and eventually improve people's lives, even save them from climate devastation/crisis - your priority may not be working on poverty and social justice/human rights, today. But people are dying and being imprisoned and kept from organizing to improve their lives - today! Not that environmentalists don't care about that, I realize it is just not what they are working on – but everyone cannot be doing big climate change work. . . Although people do not always like the comparisons, I think that the concept is useful: someone has to be building the dam while others are pulling the drowning out of the water. The question - how do we make sure that we are all working together - no point in your diverting the river so that others will flood. . .

I felt that the agenda on day two became one in which direct action on climate change became the priority and the question that was posed and the issues represented in the title were lost by the end of day 2. The agenda was essentially “hi-jacked” buy a focus on the environment. Now I understand all the way, that the south is going to be affected first by climate change and that drought and floods are going to affect the south first, and most extremely. I wrote about it in a previous blog, but I felt that too much time was spent on individual solutions for the north – get rid of cars, use your purchases to buy a new world. . . etc. I wanted to see solutions based on green jobs and technologies for the developing world – how small farms, eco-farming, agroecology, and perma-culture could help and would be good for the environment and people. How does moving to sustainable fishing or farming or manufacturing help the move to improve democracy, human rights, gender equity and civil society space (yup – I love the big questions?)

So although unsatisfied at the end of day two, I was nevertheless interested enough to return, as I wanted to see what kind of action would emerge from some rather “deep” discussion. By Day 3 though, we were a very small group – one of the “rules” of Open Space is that “you let your feet talk” - if you are not getting anything out of your group – move to another group – or go out in the hall, or go home, but don't hang around feeling that you are wasting your time. The other principles are: 1) Whoever comes are the right people, 2) whatever happens is the only thing that could have, 3) when it starts is the right time, 4) when it's over it's over. These aren't prescriptive, according to Open Space World - they are the results of thousands of little experiments.

So none of the actions on Day 3 seemed to include all of the elements of the question – how can civil society contribute to the reconciliation of the fight against poverty, economic development and climate justice. The discussion that came closest – and the one that I worked on - was to create an index against which governments of any economic model, north or south, could be rated against, with data mostly available, and that would measure poverty, human rights and environmental impact/justice. But this action was far too big for anyone in the group to take on, although all of us were willing to work on it. There are many other measures, indexes etc., but they take many people to analyze the data and they are usually based on the OECD only, or on the U.N. development index etc. Another problem with most current indexes is that they use the current economic model of growth as an indicator – this needs to be altered to measure improved sustainability, relative poverty and inequality, and Human Rights. Other groups came up with great projects – plant a million trees in Mozambique, or distribute Diva Cups (reusable menstrual cups)to young women in a country in the global south. . . but they seemed specific and didn't seem to reconcile all three issues at all – but then I was not in those groups – feel free to tell me about your different experience in the same group.

So I enjoyed my time in the space, and think it is a great facilitation technique because it demonstrates what can arise out of an open, free democratic space. Personally, I learned some things and made some friends, but I thought that there was not enough cohesion in the group, to ask harder questions - that the overall question/goal/outcome/ of the group was ignored by the majority (or perhaps everyone was influenced by the more aggressive) in the group. It was a great use of open, democratic space – the group takes control - but a disappointment for me and I expect others. . . since the group went from so large, to so small.

I would use Open Space again for a Civicus Assembly, (though I am not involved in those decisions!) but I would suggest that either the questions be ones that would attract a group of people with a more common goal/outcome (who could debate ways of getting there); that how the actions would be implemented (web based follow up - Civicus as an organization committed to follow up on one or two most promising items?) was clearly outlined, or, alternatively, that the entire Civicus Assembly be involved in creating the agendas, groups and spaces in the first place so that we could follow the group questions to a group facilitator with a specific agenda, that I share, and want to work on. It would be unwieldy with so many people but it could also be magic.

Global Food Prices - Food Crisis

This post was originally written and published on the blog for the Civicus Assembly

What causes rising food prices? And how do we stop it from outpacing inflation?

Some suggest that recent increases in global food prices are being driven by increases in the world's human population - that the increases, in both, are linked and inevitable. By their account our population simply outstrips the capacity of our environment to support sustainable food production. There are those who believe that mandated, legislated zero population growth is the only way we can ensure enough for all and keep the planet from being "used up".

While slowing or stopping population growth will likely assist in meeting the sustainability of the planet and people in the long term, it’s unlikely that long-term population growth is the driving factor of recent food price fluctuations. If population growth was the engine of inflation in food prices, one would expect a gradual increase rather than leaps and spikes.

Other explanations are more complex. They point to the role played in food price energy costs - e.g. fertilizer, farm equipment and food distribution. These links are the centre of a recent report by the World Bank. Energy does impact the price of food, no question, but is it the primary driver, given that prices took another big jump in the last 6 months, without similar changes in the cost of oil?

There is, as well, the contribution of issues at the supply end, related to poor harvests (which can cause hoarding by both farmers and consumers), or changes in crops grown. Those issues, are strongly dependent on environmental factors, including flood or drought, but also because choices about what to grow and where to grow it can be (sometimes unreasonably) influenced by national policies and subsidies. This is the narrative focused on by a recent story in the Financial Times detailing the poor grain harvest in Russia this year, and the subsequent global rise of grain prices, especially of flour. Russia’s decision to ban grain exports in response has resulted in shortages elsewhere. The Times suggests that:

Tight supplies, changing weather patterns and rising demand in emerging economies have all contributed to rising concerns about food security.

Not a word in these explanations, however, about what Civicus website visitors identified as the most likely culprit -- financial speculation. And, all of these explanations also ignore other dimensions of each of these issues including the contribution of climate change (as does a recent BBC report decreasing on rice harvests) monoculture, overuse of chemical fertilizers and herbicides and pesticides, not to mention GMO's . . . and a failure to develop agricultural policies that are going to meet the needs of those that farm - rather than far away consumers.

A July 2010 article in Harper's , entitled The Food Bubble: How Wall Street Starved Millions and Got Away with It, the author, Frederick Kaufman, argues pretty convincingly that the creation of a commodities index for grain helped fuel speculation, and that as food prices rose so did the index. The short version, which he presents in an interview with DemocracyNow, of his analysis is that massive investments by banks in wheat futures led to prices that were not 8%, but up to eight times higher than usual. The result? He says in part:

FREDERICK KAUFMAN: How did this work? Instead of a buy-and-sell order, like everybody does in these markets, they just started buying. It’s called "going long." They started going long on wheat futures. OK? And every time one of these contracts came due, they would do something called "rolling it over" into the next contract. So they would take all those buy promises they had made and say, "OK, we still—we’re just going to—we’ll buy more later. And plus we’re going to buy more now." And they kept on buying and buying and buying and buying and accumulating this unprecedented, this historically unprecedented pile of long-only wheat futures . . . Now, a lot of people are saying, "Oh, it was biofuel production. It was drought in Australia. It was floods in Kazakhstan." Let me tell you, hard red wheat generally trades between $3 and $6 per sixty-pound bushel. It went up to $12, then $15, then $18. Then it broke $20. And on February 25th, 2008, hard red spring futures settled at $25 per bushel. . .

. . .

And, of course, the irony here is that in 2008, it was the greatest wheat-producing year in world history. The world produced more wheat in 2008 than ever before.

. . .


JUAN GONZALEZ: And the result was, as the price went up, that there were food riots around the world.

FREDERICK KAUFMAN: Yeah.

You can watch the interview with Kaufman here. You can also read Goldman - Sach's letter defending themselves, and the author's response.

On addressing the contribution of speculation to 2008’s food price increases, and subsequent food riots, however, Kaufman is not alone. here’s an excerpt from the conclusions of another recent report from the World Bank, Placing the 2006/08 Commodity Price Boom into Perspective:

In this paper we examined three key factors whose role has been somewhat controversial: speculation, the growth of demand for food commodities by emerging economies and the role of biofuels. We conjecture that index fund activity (one type of “speculative” activity among the many that the literature refers to) played a key role during the 2008 price spike. Biofuels played some role too, but much less than initially thought. And we find no evidence that alleged stronger demand by emerging economies had any effect on world prices. Although tentative, these conclusions provide insights into the determinants of
the future path of commodity prices, which is still uncertain.

Food and markets - prices, sovereignty, security, availability - are all connected and all complex. Raj Patel briefly outlines some of the causes here. Speculation has contributed, surely, but Patel points that so too has the exposure to the volatility inherent in exposure to world markets as a result of liberalization of trade:

In 2009, Raj Patel and Eric Holt-Giménez, released a book, Food rebellions! Crisis and the Hunger for Justice. The precis of the book suggests that democratizing food systems and making society work for everyone is part of the answer:

Food Rebellions! suggests that to solve the food crisis, we must change the global food system — from the bottom up and from the top down. On one hand, farmers utilising sustainable approaches to production need to be supported, and farmer-to-farmer agroecological knowledge must be spread. At the same time, food and farm advocates need to work in local, national and international policy arenas to open dialogue, demand transparency and change the 'rules' currently holding back agroecological alternatives. The book frames the current food crisis as a unique opportunity to develop productive local food systems as engines for sustainable economic development. Hunger and poverty, the authors insist, can be eliminated by democratising food systems and respecting people's right to safe, nutritious and culturally appropriate food and to food-producing resources — in short, by advancing food sovereignty.

There are many other possible answers…what do you think? What is the most important cause of increasing food prices? What can we do to make sure that everyone can afford, and ultimately has enough, to eat?

Following publication of this blog I received this article: Food Commodities Speculation. . .   which does talk about the rise of food prices based on speculation.  It was written by:

Olivier De Schutter was appointed the UN Special Rapporteur on the
right to food in March 2008 by the United Nations Human Rights
Council. He is independent from any government or organization, and he
reports to the Human Rights Council and to the UN General Assembly.
All reports are available on http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/food/
annual.htm. See http://www.srfood.org for a thematic classification
of all reports and statements of the Special Rapporteur. The Special
Rapporteur can be contacted on srfood@ohchr.org

Economic Justice

This blog was written for the Civicus world assembly blog and is reproduced here.


One of the themes of this year's CIVICUS assembly, in Montreal, is Economic Justice. What is economic justice? I am sure that there are some accepted definitions, but, none of them come from economics! So, my definition is: simply ensuring that everyone has access to, due to the fair allocation of: land, jobs, money, even opportunity; that no one is denied water, food, a home, a job. . . the basic needs and more .. . because they fit a "category" of people that are to be exploited or robbed. One should not be denied the right to basic needs (including education and healthcare) because one is black, lives in Africa, or South Asia, are a woman or a child, or belong to the wrong class, caste or tribe. So one needs the freedom to participate, to demand, to lobby, to organize and one needs education and a kind of optimism -- that things can be fairly allocated, can be just, can be distributed differently.

One of the things that holds back economic justice is a failure to consider all economic models. Most (but not all) of the world has adopted some form of capitalism. We say (at least in North America) "the economy" as if we mean it is some unchangeable force of nature. Jim Stanford - a Canadian economist - wrote a book called "Economics for Everyone". In it, he argues that we have a capitalist economic system and he writes about how it works. He does not propose socialism, or any other model, but does suggest that we should all understand that it is just one possible model, and that the constructs underpinning the "economy" can be changed. He also suggests that we should understand how "the economy" works, in order not be bamboozled by governments and economists into thinking that a restructuring of priorities and social organization are impossible.

He has a great website to accompany the book - Economics for Everyone - in which he says ". . . It provides a comprehensive description (and critique) of free-market economics." This is not your usual "economics text" but is written for the average "activist" to understand. The site actually includes slides, study guides, teacher's notes etc to run a course on how the economy works, and in my own experience, Jimbo is absolutely willing to help if you are trying to put the course together.

One of the things that he does not cover is those things that are not counted in the economy but should be. . . As Einstein famously said: Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.

For that, I turn to a great book by Raj Patel - "The Value of Nothing" - again there is a website to accompany the book - The Value of Nothing - that site says in part:

Opening with Oscar Wilde’s observation that “nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing,” Patel shows how our faith in prices as a way of valuing the world is misplaced. He reveals the hidden ecological and social costs of a hamburger (as much as $200), and asks how we came to have markets in the first place. Both the corporate capture of government and our current financial crisis, Patel argues, are a result of our democratically bankrupt political system.

In what way? Because, he argues, in most countries corporations have become defined as "legal people" , and, because, in addition, we have been engaging for thirty years in "enclosure" -- owning and allowing ownership of more and more "things" - intellectual property, common lands, seed, water etc. More and more people are being ignored. We know, as he says, quoting Oscar Wilde, "the Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing". He says (p. 172/73):

"over the past thirty years, the accelerating price of enclosure, and the increasing scale of the theft, have brought our planet to the edge of destruction. Internationally, environmental costs have been shunted from rich to poor, most notably though not exclusively from global warming. A recent report offers a very conservative estimate of the number of people harmed by climate change today at 325 million, every year. The number of deaths from weather changes alone is set to exceed 500,000 people per year.. . and most of these deaths will happen among those who have had the least to do with causing pollution, people whose countries were colonized by the very same powers that have caused this new catastrophe. . . Handing the matter over to capitalism is, however, likely to prove as good an idea as asking the iceberg to fix the Titanic."

Patel does not argue that there can be no markets. On the contrary he argues that they have always existed and that what has changed is the way that we organize markets, what has value in them, and how we decide what to work on. Unfortunately too often our political decisions are based on profit, the marketplace and return on investment. He does say that alternatives are difficult to implement - how do we remove "corporate rapacity" from government and "the bleak weight of consumerism from our political imaginations." However, he does suggest that it IS possible and worth working on.

Great video overview of his thesis at:



Speaking of great videos and having just mentioned the weight of consumerism - another site, if you have not seen it, that is worth watching is:

the Story of Stuff. In it, Annie Leonard not only tells us what is wrong with the way that we are organized economically - but at least for me, she offers some direction for solution, including the fact that you don't have to work on everything - but need to working on some part of the "fix". . . the whole video is 20 minutes long - but it is worth it! Please take the time.



The site, with other issues , videos and resources is at: Story of Stuff

If economic justice is going to be achieved then we in the north (or, if you prefer the west or the so-called "developed" nations) have an obligation to pay our share, and more than our share now, since we have, as a community, been stealing from the rest of the world for a couple of centuries. As an example you can see my post on Haiti - Haiti - which describe the theft from Haiti, and it is just one example.

All of these issues need to be debated, discussed and consideration has to be given, re how to improve economic justice and distribution. Can Canadians ever demand, in large numbers, that we: democratize our economic system; that we give up some privilege/luxury (out of the car and onto the bus . . . people, eat local. . . people) to ensure better international distribution; that we collect taxes, but use them to help others we have traditionally stolen from; that we agree to provide a lot more in aid/development assistance; that we reduce our carbon footprint and allow others to increase theirs; to more radically open our doors to economic and climate migrants?. . . If not I fear the world is headed to overheating, plankton loss, and ocean death, and eventually the end of human life.

Too bleak an outlook? What do you think?

Travelling with Matt in Gaza, Civicus and SEWA

First something wonderful! You may remember Travelling with Matt. His website, "Where the Hell is Matt?" showed him dancing, badly, around the world. The video of his travels, and dancing with people in many countries, was very inspiring and uplifting, and brought us all together. Now he has a video where he is dancing with children in Gaza. Watching the kids dance, and reading about them having a good time at summer camp, made me very happy.



___________________________________________________________________
Another great thing that is happening in Canada. . .

I hope I can attend this assembly. CIVICUS 9th Annual World Assembly, which this year is in Montreal. See: http://civicus.org/world-assembly Sounds very appealing. . . It will be interesting, and much would be new to me. I want to participate and would hope for increasing my knowledge base about development issues, and to participate in making decisions about future outcomes fro the organization and its members.

The following workshop interests me in particular--

Abstract:

In the backdrop of increasing economic inequalities threatening to arrest social cohesion and harmony, the search for solution-oriented interventions to secure economic justice has gained centre-stage in the global development debate and practice. At the proposed workshop, participants will have the opportunity to share experiences, learn and gain practical tips from a highly experienced panel of civil society practitioners about the criticality of participatory governance approaches in promoting equitable economic development policies, securing economic rights of people and achieve inclusive growth. Specifically, participants will be exposed to tools and approaches such as Participatory Budgeting, Public Expenditure Tracking, Social Audits and so on. A part of the panel discussion will be driven by a video documentary produced by the International Budget Partnership (IBP)

Presenters:

Manjunath Sadashiva, CIVICUS Participatory Governance Programme, India
Anu Pekkonen, CIVICUS Participatory Governance Programme, Finland
Helena Hofbauer, International Budget Partnership, South Africa
Elizabeth Pinnington, Pinnington Training and Research, Canada
Yogesh Kumar, Samarthan, India

In India, I saw so much more participation in parties and politics. . . and it seemed like everyone had a real analysis of what was going on. . . So I would really like to engage in that discussion - how can they increase participation in India, especially among the poor - who demonstrate but get excluded from party politics - and, how can it be emulated in other countries?

That CIVICUS Assembly is being followed by something else, that's free (Civicus is expensive - $600.) and also looks interesting. . . is the Citizen's Media Rendevouz The website says, in part:

In an era where mass media is increasingly fragile (declining advertizing revenues, financial crisis, digital revolution, fragmenting audiences, etc.), citizen media have an unprecedented opportunity to occupy the public sphere, particularly due to the advancement of social media and the democratization of modes of production.

For this second edition, the Citizen Media Rendez-Vous seeks to advance innovative practices within citizen media’s landscape, here and elsewhere in world. How can the public access and appropriate new media projects to better inform and mobilize itself? How can citizen media be used in the defense of human rights?

The Citizen Media Rendez-Vous gathers bloggers, engaged filmmakers, photographers and citizen journalists, media experts, alternative and independent media practitioners, web entrepreneurs, as well as others from the media landscape in turmoil. The Citizen Media Rendez-Vous is a space that promotes the sharing of ideas and practices. It invites new perspectives and encourages new collaborations. Lively exchanges among panelists and participants will touch subjects such as the creation of content, the containers within which content is placed (technology platforms) and different community organizational models.

I am planning to go to Montreal for these events. I have registered for the Rendevous and applied to be a volunteer blogger for the CIVICUS Assembly, as I cannot afford the registration fee.
___________________________________________________________________

Last link suggestion today . . . and another happy one is to a story in the NY Times

The story is about a poor Indian woman from Gujarat who was selected by SEWA (Self-Employed Women's Association) to come to NY to promote Indian handicrafts. I am particularly impressed with SEWA (have been for some time) who have helped organize women in India using a kind of trade union model. They also have a very successful and profitable bank that serves those who were originally thought to not need a bank - micro credit is now used in lots of places. Anyway, it was a story that made me laugh and cry. I won't spell it out - just follow the link -From Untouchable to Businesswoman - and go read it for yourself.

I cried partly because in lots of India, and Africa too, it is hard for people to find clean drinking water. Today Kevin and I went for a hike through an area that once housed many people on a "poor Farm" outside Halifax, NS. We were thinking and talking about the model of having a "poor farm" where you went to work and eat if you were too poor to feed yourself, and worrying that we have not come much further - too poor to feed yourself you can get welfare which will leave you well below the Canadian low income cut offs and not able to feed, house, and transport yourself. . . Eventually it became a "mental institution" instead, and we know how those services are available and serve us well (not!) The farm had a reservoir, which we found, but the water was very "dirty' looking and it started us thinking about people who have to drink water that is not clean and safe, and who even have to feed it to their children. . . it is the kind of thing that SEWA helps with, in India.