Commoning the seeds: alternative models of collective action and open innovation within French peasant seed groups for recreating local knowledge commons

Abstract

In this article, we expand the analytical and theoretical foundations of the study of knowledge commons in the context of more classical agrarian commons, such as seed commons. We show that it is possible to overcome a number of criticisms of earlier work by Ostrom (Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990) on natural commons and its excludability/rivalry matrix in addressing the inclusive social practices of "commoning", defined as a way of living and acting for the preservation of the commons. Our empirical analysis emphasizes, using the most recent advances in the IAD/SES framework, the distributed and collaborative knowledge governance in a French peasant seed network as a key driver for reintroducing cultivated agrobiodiversity and on-farm seed conservation of ancient and landrace varieties. These inclusive peasant seed groups developed alternative peer-to-peer models of collaborative peasant-led community-based breeding and grassroots innovations in the search for more resilient population varieties. Our results highlight the various models of collective action within the network and discuss the organizational tradeoffs of opting out of peasant seed activities and recreating a shared collective knowledge base on the benefits of restoring cultivated agrobiodiversity. It helps us better understand how modern peasant seed groups function as epistemic communities which contributes to envisioning alternative agricultural systems.

Restoring cultivated agrobiodiversity: The political ecology of knowledge networks between local peasant seed groups in France

“…1 In this article, we use the terms "peasant" and "peasant seeds" because they reflect the ontologies used and reclaimed by the actors themselves as distinctive political markers closely connected with the left-wing farmers' union "confédération paysanne" in France and the international agrarian movement Via Campesina (Osman and Chable, 2009;Demeulenaere, 2014). It also echoes a number of critical studies in the field of anarchist agrarian studies on the peasant resistance to the capitalist and state-driven agricultural modernization (Scott, 1979) and their extensions in the field of political ecology (Peet and Watts, 1996;Robbins, 2012 supporting the PWBG, which supplements previous studies on the political ecology of seed commons (Demeulenaere, 2014(Demeulenaere, , 2018Demeulenaere et al, 2017;Mazé et al, 2020). Second, our analysis suggests important insights about the models of collective action and the functioning of peasant-led community-based breeding adopted by the PWBG to support on-farm agrobiodiversity restoration.…”

“…A growing number of studies consider these alternative peasant seed initiatives as "seed commons", e.g. collectively managed shared collective resources by local place-based peasant groups shaped by common values, knowledge ecosystems and rules of sociability (Demeulenaere, 2014;Mazé et al, 2020). Through its distributed and networked model of community-based breeding, the PWBG is thus proposing a break with the current corporate and entrepreneurial models adopted by the seed industry and their vertical labor division between peasants and breeders (Bonneuil and Thomas, 2009).…”

“…As part of their models of collective action, the strong ethical values conveyed within the PWBG about peasant's self-empowerment, equity, reciprocity and trust were mirrored by the distributed and horizontal network structure, and democratic decision making they adopted (Dawson et al, 2011;Demeulenaere, 2014;Mazé et al, 2020). Within the RSP, the peasants are no longer considered just as users of breeding innovations designed by others: now, they are themselves the actors and the innovators involved in a peer-to-peer process of knowledge, cocreation and open innovation, as defined by Von Hippel (2005).…”

“…Within the RSP, the peasants are no longer considered just as users of breeding innovations designed by others: now, they are themselves the actors and the innovators involved in a peer-to-peer process of knowledge, cocreation and open innovation, as defined by Von Hippel (2005). By giving more autonomy to peasants to develop their own rules, the network governance adopted by the PWBG aimed enhancing the reflexive individual and collective learning needed in the context of knowledge restoration (Demeulenaere et al, 2017;Mazé et al, 2020). A better understanding of the specific conditions under which these innovative peasant seed networks operate is still needed.…”

“…Furthermore, it requires special effort to recreate a shared, common and collective knowledge (Brac de la Perrière, 2014). A fundamental approach of the PWBG has been to recreate a collective space of knowledge exchanges and practices to harness both individual and collective learning through the day-to-day practice of seed handling and experimentation (Brac de la Perrière, 2014; Demeulenaere, 2014;Mazé et al, 2020).…”