Asian Alliance for Solidarity Economy

by

BETSAN PATRICIA MARTIN, New Zealand

(This paper was presented at the 2007 Asian Forum for Solidarity Economy in Manila, Philippines)

I bring greeting from the Charter for Responsibility Committee in NZ and include in that warm greetings from the people of the land, Maori and Pacific communities with whom we work as an intercultural team.

We acknowledge those who have gone before us, those who inform our thinking and actions towards human responsibility, and those who give leadership and guidance for governance that supports the interdependence of people with the earth.

Philosophy for Aotearoa-NZ Charter for Responsibility

Relational ethics

The main philosophical orientation of our committee is to work with relational ethics, through practices of partnership, shared-decision-making, and working with an earth-centered approach in our projects. One of our group, Charles Royal who is a Maori philosopher refers to a ‘woven universe’ (2003) to describe the inter-relatedness of all things.

The relational world view that we work with comes from indigenous knowledge sources, as well as to western philosophers of ethics. Indigenous thought  such as Charles Royal’s concept of a woven universe, and the Pacific oceanic traditions  reflected in the two hulled waka come from traditions of  governance which have regard for safeguarding resources across generations.

Western thought which guides our thinking include Emmanual Levinas and Luce Irigaray, whose work comes from critique of western patriarchal individualism, and restores relational and spiritual values such as responsiveness as neighbours, and the capacity to relate across differences of sex, culture, age, belief that is identified as being attuned with women’s values.

Within this relational approach can be found a move from human centred ethics to the interdependence of life with earth, air, fire and water. The challenge of this work to western women for whom freedom and equality have become realities, is to work with such ethics when we are in so many ways compelled by the dominance of competitive, economic values.

Partnership

Another metaphor for a relational approach, from our location in the Pacific is the two-hulled waka – a vessel for the great journeys across the Pacific that were undertaken traditionally.  Much can be derived from this image, but the main aspects which inspire us are the two hulls and the joining platform.

The model may seem restricted to partnership between ‘two’, but it can represent many forms of shared endeavour, One interpretation we hear is that women are at the front, giving birth to the future, and men at the back safeguarding experience for traditional wisdom.

The hulls can be seen as corresponding to Mãori and Pakeha, the two main groups of people in NZ who entered into a Treaty in 1840. The Treaty was an agreement for shared governance, but this has never been agreed to by Parliament since is represented the majority British immigrant population from the 1860’s.

The joining platform is a key part of the structure, where representatives of the hulls meet to exchange knowledge and views and for decision-making. You might say that direction for the vessel is set from the space in the middle.

Partnership expresses our relational approach which is at the heart of responsibility – responsibility is responsiveness, and attunement with those we relate to closely, as well as  more distantly, and with the living world.

Responsibility for the Health of Water Ecosystems: a NZ –Pacific regional initiative.

NZ Team

Earlier this year a small groups of us  came together for a special 3 day meeting  to discuss responsibility and the project we have initiated on  governance for the health water ecosystems. We chose to work with water because our Pacific identity as a liquid continent, where the  ocean, Te Moana Nui a Kiwa, makes us neighbours.

Reference points for Responsibility for Water

Water is the focus of intense interest for governance in NZ with tension between the market interests in commodifying water and establishing property and ownership rights, and indigenous tribes having to straddle customary traditions of guardianship and care for water, yet make claims for their interests in water through property rights conventions.

Access to water and water quality are the focus of local  conflicts across the globe as water becomes locked up  in private property regimes.  The rising sea levels in Climate Change is already impacting on the Pacific with the prospect of environmental refugees raising particular responsibilities as neighbours for the larger countries of NZ and Australia.

Another reference point for  water comes from understanding water as the foundation of all of life. As stated by Callum Coats, a  water researcher and advocate with whom we are working stated:

“Good water – good life, Bad water – bad life, No water – no life.”

The natural state of water is to be in continuous motion and transformation, absorbing essential elements as  it flows through the atmosphere and earth to take on the qualities needed to support life. The continuance of life is not just a matter of water supply, rather it is the quality of water that determines the level of functioning of human life and other species that consume water.  Coats has identified the mutual importance of the health of water and of life. The question before us is not one of humanity versus the rest of creation, but one of a humanity inextricably embedded in a mutually supportive environment in which the myriads of lesser organisms have an equally vital role to play. Ultimately their needs and their continuing health are as important as ours, and we neglect them at our peril (Coats 2001:2)

Unfortunately I can only bring you a sip of knowledge of  the amazing attributes of water which we are partaking in through a series of seminars with Callum Coats, who opens up the world of  vortical energy systems as part of the complex properties of water.

In this time of a Climate for Change we are taking notice of global environmental deterioration and our intimate connection with this loss.  Part of the remedy for the general increasing disconnection with the natural world is to restore our ability to relate to living, breathing energy systems, to hear the intelligence of earth and rivers and oceans.

In a small and humble way we seek to respond forms of governance and management that is attuned to the life supporting capacity of earth’s ecosystems.

Integrated governance

In the NZ and Pacific context, indigenous systems based on the interdependence of people with earth, provide some guidance for engaging with environmental responsibility through whole of systems governance and safeguarding long term environmental  and human interests.

We have identified ‘integrated governance’ as a term our Charter for Responsibility working group is using for the initiative on ‘Responsibility for the Health of Water ecosystems. We are inaugurating the project with a meeting in Samoa in January, with participants anticipating being involved in case studies of integrated governance of various water ecosystems projects in NZ, Australia and Pacific Islands.

Principles which we are working with for integrated governance are linked with the sharing of knowledge across disciplinary boundaries and with the interwoven dimensions of social, economic and environmental dimensions for ‘strong sustainability’. These, along with decision-making for the Long term correspond with principles of the Charter for Human Responsibility.

Principles for integrated governance include:

• Partnership and collaboration
• Working with cultural difference and support for indigenous aspirations regarding land and governance
• Decision-making involving whole systems approaches
• An interdisciplinary approach, involving science, social science, philosophy, economics,  with sharing of knowledge.
• Holding the Long view to ensure resources to support future generations
• Earth related with an ecosystem focus
• Keeping a place for the environment ‘to speak’ at the governance table

Recently I was discussing a  proposal for a housing development, of a style that can be seen all over NZ  for subdividing land into small lifestyle properties or for intense inner city apartment construction. In this case it was a rural area which I had been involved in opposing through provisions of the RMA – in my role as a board member. When I spoke about this to a Maori elder from the area, he said ‘ there’s no problem with development, all that matters is that the quality of water in the stream is protected.

NZ and Pacific as parties to International Conventions:

NZ and many Pacific Island states have become parties to numerous environmental conventions, as well as to UN Covenants for the elimination of racism, and other covenants to safeguard Human Rights.⁴

While noting these environmental covenants, and before identifying them, it seems timely to refer a moment to the recently passed UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Key Articles

Simple principles of partnership  include provision for indigenous people to chose their own representatives at forums (and not have these selected ). They also include compensation for the taking of land and other forms of loss.

Articles include:

• Indigenous Peoples have the right to self-determination, and to determine their political status.
• The right to distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining the right to participate in the life of the State.
• Right to establish educational systems and provide education in their own languages
• The Right to practice and teach spiritual traditions, to protect privacy of cultural sites and control ceremonial objects, and rights to repatriation of human remains.
• Shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories.
• the Right to development and to determine priorities for their lands, territories or other resources
• the Right to determine the responsibilities of individuals to their communities

There has been an outcry because of NZ opposed the Declaration , despite years of advocacy and lobbying from Maori for the NZ government to support this indigenous initiative. The Declaration was passed by 143 votes to 4  (with some abstentions) with opposition from New Zealand, Canada, US and Australia. The Declaration was supported by the Philippines, Chile, Brazil, France, Greece, India, Zimbabwe, Netherlands.

A key area identified by one speaker at a local meeting was that opposition by the four states was to protect  Free Trade, with the argument that  Indigenous Nations Treaty rights might constitute an obstacle to the free trade regime because international free trade agreements rest on  non-disputable national sovereignty  – so states ensure there is no diminishment of  territorial sovereignty.

These proclaimed rights have symbolic force which will be realized with duties, or responsibilities to implement them. You will see the difference between our state refusal to support these rights and the Charter for Responsibility Across Oceania project to work with, and support these kinds of principles.

Environmental Conventions

The Pacific Islands and NZ are two of the 25 ‘hot-spots’ in the world, marked as being in environmental crisis. The need for locally-based ecological initiatives integrated with regional and global information was identified in our Responsibility team discussions with  scientists at the Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP).

In our project we will therefore bring knowledge of global ecosystems to inform local and regional programmes for protecting biodversity. Protection of fish and birds needs to account for migratory habits -  birds migrate from Alaska to Samoa, Godwits migrate from Siberia to New Zealand and then return to reproduce.   Similarly, long finned eels live in NZ rivers for 80 years then migrate to Tongan waters to spawn and continue ther lifecycle in this habitat for a further 20 years.  Fish migrations mean that local environmental and ecological initiatives have to be matched with corresponding responsibilities in far regions.

Some of the conventions which NZ and Pacific states are party to include:

• UN Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982, covers  territorial sea, EEZ and continental shelf. Refers to sustainable fisheries and marine protection
• UN Convention of Biological Diversity
• UN Fish Stocks Agreement – management of migratory species beyond EEZ
• Convention on Conservation of Migratory species – NZ involvement in managing biodiversity beyond territorial limits
• Protection of Antarctica – Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade

The UN convention of the Law of the Sea  provides a legal framework for management of oceans. As a signatory New Zealand gained rights and responsibilities for over 4 million sq. kilometers (430 million hectares) of sea, the area of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

The UN Convention on Biological Diversity (1993) arose from the 1992 convention on biological diversity held in Rio de Janiero. The UN convention, which has been ratified by NZ, provides for the setting of national priorities, which are then translated into regional plans and local management regimes. A series of conventions include codes for responsible fishing, provisions for management of migratory fish, and mechanisms for NZ involvement in managing biodiversity beyond territorial limits. New Zealand is part of the UN Convention on Environment of the South Pacific Region, as well as being party to treaties on Antarctica,

In the visions and objectives of the UN Conventions, and the ways in which they have been translated into policy in New Zealand, there are general principles which can be identified as:

• The conservation of biological diversity;
• The sustainable use of  resources;
• An ecosystems approach to research, governance and management;
• Fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of  utilisating genetic resources.
• Marine Protected Areas as a tool for managing the marine environment
• Community-based natural resource management and conservation initiatives
• Management to ensure freshwater quality and supply
• Sustainable coastal fisheries
• Waste management and pollution prevention
• Learning for best practice in integrated governance and management of coastal watersheds

Current water, oceans, and fishing policies are oriented towards species and resource use, whereas these principles move us towards taking account of the inter-relationships between species, of habitat protection and of the effects of waste disposal in  water and oceans. At present NZ has not proceeded with a comprehensive Oceans Policy as originally promoted, which is attributed to the government’s betrayal of Maori customary interests in the Foreshore and Seabed. Legislation in 2003 foreclosed on customary rights, with an assertion of Crown sovereignty which is parallel to the assertion of territorial sovereignty for trading purposes that we saw with the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

We are working with another approach to globalization, different from that of corporatized economic growth: which is shared responsibility for the complex inter-connected eco-system of the biosphere, from which emerges the need for protocols that support local, and indigenous approaches to ecological responsibility with international protocols for safeguarding all forms of life.

Concluding  notes

Linking social and environmental responsibility

Our projects on water encompass building a NZ network on responsibility for water, Te Wai Puna Ariki, and a regional project Across Oceania Te Au o Te Moana.  Working with science and social science has led us to bring together social and environmental concerns, and this will be one area we bring to a symposium / assembly in Samoa in January 2008.

One of the big questions of sustainability is how to relate care for the environmental  with responsibility to alleviate poverty.  Development is seen as the pathway to achieve  the freedoms that come with sufficient income to bring access to education, to enhance health and bring the human benefits of enhancing human capacity for social participation and access to technology and knowledge.

Knowledge about climate change and environmental responsibility comes out of science and is access to information. People who are poor in terms of education and access to information are less likely to be informed of the environmental crisis and even less likely to be able to be involved in movements for responsibility or to influence decisions. This may not  be necessarily true of indigenous peoples who may be income poor, but who are resourced with traditional knowledge and unextinguishable responsibilities to the land. Nevertheless, it can be claimed that people’s whose basic needs are not being met cannot give priority to protection of  earth, water and air (Sinner, Baines et al, 2004).

To this end we hold up Amartya Sen’s thesis (Sen 1999) that freedom requires relief from poverty and deprivation and is the basis for the opportunity to realize and express human potential and engage in responsible citizenship.

Callum Coats has asserted that a long-term view is now imperative, taking appropriate steps to respond to an earth in crisis and safeguard the long-term future of life. For this a far more profound knowledge of Nature is necessary, so that whatever is implemented by way of remedial measures, will be in harmonious accordance with Nature’s laws.

References:

Coats, C. (2001) ‘Water the Unifier of Life’ Presentation Paper at the Alliance Workshop ‘Interbeing’ ,Bangalore, South India – 19^th – 23^rd June 2001

Royal, C.  (ed) (2003) The Woven Universe. Selected Writings of Rev. Maori Marsden. The Estate of the Rev. Maori Marsden.

Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Books

Sinner, J.; Baines, J.; Crengel, H.; Salmon, G.; Fenemor, A.; Tipa, G. (2004) ‘Sustainable Development: A summary of Key Concepts’. Ecologic Research Report No. 2.

NOTE FROM DENISON JAYASOORIA (1/KL2011)

CHAIR OF THE KL2011 ASIAN FORUM FOR SOLIDARITY ECONOMY

Nov 9, 2009

Dear Friends,

It was a great pleasure to meet you during the 2^nd  Asian Forum (Tokyo2009) which was held from Nov 7 & 8, 2009. During this Forum we learned many lessons and shared many experiences. I take this opportunity to thank you all for agreeing to Malaysia being the host for  the 3^rd Asian Forum in Kuala Lumpur (KL2011).

Malaysia is an outstanding example where there has been tremendous socio-economic transformation which has taken place. Household poverty reduced from 50% of the population at the time of Independence in 1957 to less than 5% in 2009. While this was our success story, there is however rising income inequalities in Malaysia between the top 20% and the bottom 30%, within and among communities. We also note the emergence of the poor and low income families in the urban areas and complexity of the rural poor especially the interior, forest based communities.

Community based approaches which puts people before profits is the new models of socio economic transformation that Malaysia is adopting and therefore the KL2011 Asian Forum will enable Malaysia to show case its success models but at the same time learn from the experiences of other success stories from around the Asian region.

Personal Reflections & Lessons learnt from 2009 Forum

The experience at Tokyo was very enriching. I noted five key aspects which could serve as a helpful reminder of a memorable experience in promoting solidarity economy in Asia.

First, a number of the speakers provided a comprehensive introduction both the theoretical as well as the historical development of solidarity economy especially the context of its emergence. Among those who developed this theme were Dr Yoko Kitazawa and Prof Jun Nishikawa. However we did not devote enough attention to this very important aspect in due time especially at the next Asian Forum

Second, the practice dimensions through sharing of experiences and case studies. This is the most important contribution of the Tokyo gathering. A number were regional or national experiences as in the case of Martine Theveniaut of EU, Ben Quinones of the Philippines or Jang Won Bong of the Korean national model. In addition the many stories from Malaysia, India, Nepal and Japan added reflections of models and experiences. In the long run here too we must develop a framework for documentation, analysis and drawing lessons.

The third aspect relates to institutional development of the organizations involved. This was well illustrated by the presentation on social finance and social investment by Bernd Balkenhol of ILO and Ms Viviane Vandemeulebroucke (INAISE). In addition a new step forward was the social performance management tool which was highlighted by Ms Micol Pisrtell of MIX. In addition the ethical aspects’ discussed by Ms Edith Sizoo was also very critical. However there was not enough time for in-depth discussion and adoption of these by Asian Forum partners as the framework of operations.

The fourth aspect is the policy dimension including advocacy and lobbying the governments for a conducive policy environment which will facilitate the development of solidarity economy and especially social enterprises. The policy and legislative framework in Korea was provides institutional support of the State. Likewise the policy changes in Japan also merits further study and reflection. These can serve as helpful developments within the region for other Asian countries to emulate. More focus must be given towards policy advocacy and public policy issues in the future.

In this context too, Workshop E on International regulations for a solidarity levy warrants further reflections as the paper presenters shared experiences in attempting to influence the global financial order in a new and creative way. There is therefore an urgent need to balance micro development work at the grassroots with influencing and impacting global institutions, regional bodies and national governments to create new policies and legislation which will further enhance solidarity economy.

Fifthly, the Tokyo2009 Forum provided tremendous opportunities for sharing, fellowship and networking among a multi diverse groups of people among whom were academics, grassroots leaders, civil society activist, development workers, policy makers, organizational leads and international representatives. This took place both during formal sessions but more so during the informal sessions. The Forum provided an opportunity for all to network with one another thereby enabling us to experience the richness and diversity of Asia.

Pointers towards the KL2011 Forum

At the Asian Alliance Business Meeting held in the evening of Nov 8, 2009 at Akasaka Morroud Inn, chaired by Mr Ben Quinones (CSRSME Asia) and attended by about 26 people from Asia and our partners from other regions agreed to the following:-

That the Asian Alliance for Solidarity Economy be established as a network of likeminded organizations and individuals. Among the suggestions made was that the structure should be informal accepting direct members from the grassroots rather than establishing national institutions and to maintain a minimum structure. That the Asian Alliance be affiliated as an Asian regional branch of RIPESS.

It was also expressed that the work of the Asian Alliance is to undertake the promotion solidarity economy in the region including undertaking joint action in cooperation with Asian and regional partners.

It was strongly emphasized that the Asian Alliance focuses on the development of young leadership and incorporate young people in all the programmes and activities. In this context the Asian Alliance will network with Global Citizens for Sustainable Development and promote the Asian Youth Assembly (August 13 to 15, 2010 in Banglore, India) and the Asian Citizens Assembly also in Banglore (August 18 to 20, 2010). Asian Alliance will work closely with Mr Anugraha John in developing this dimension.

It was emphasized that the Alliance Asian adopts a new model of operations namely moving away from just hosting an event like a forum once is two years towards undertaking a regional project focus in terms of developing a learning journey process at the local community or a local district or geographical area or local territory (as used by Pactes-locaux in France).

In this context the Asian Alliance will work closely with Pactes-Locaux in learning from the methodology used as well as securing some funding from the European Union through Pactes-Locaux for the development of this learning journey at the local levels incorporating local governance and democracy, local citizens empowerment, local development which is comprehensive rather than piece meal. In this context the Asian Alliance will work closely with Ms Martine Theveniaut and Mr Yvon Poirier.

A process/methodology paper on undertaking a Learning Journey will be circulated. Its features will include local mapping and discovering the comprehensive range of activities such as micro credit, fair trade, community empowerment and its interplay at the community level including the impact of globalization and how local communities are responding to its challenges. Mr Ben Quinones will circulate a paper on this aspect. We will also circulate Pactes-Locaux materials on this aspect.

All these experiences can be documented over a period of time between 2010 leading on towards 2013 with the first set of presentations taking place at KL2011.

It was also affirmed that the Asian Alliance and partners adopt the Charter of Human Responsibility as the foundational value base principles undergirding solidarity economy. Therefore partners should enable its members to reflect on these and share their reflections at KL2011.

It was also emphasized that at KL2011 event invitations should be extended to grassroots actors such as famers, self help group women leaders in order for them to exhibit their products and share their experiences. Therefore along with the Forum there must be exhibition booths to display their works and opportunity for them to share their experiences.

It was suggested that we could speak to airlines officials such as CEO of Air Asia to seek special fares offers for participants especially from Indonesia, Thailand and Philippines in order for a large number of delegates from these countries close to Malaysia to participate.

 It was also suggested that the Asia Forum could serve as a hub for other networkers to all hold their programmes during the same time and in this way ensure that civil society organizations and leaders could incorporate the framework of solidarity economy. In this context cooperation with the Common wealth Association for People Centred Action (COMMACT), the World Fair Trade Organisations, Micro Credit Institutions, the Co-operatives and Credit Unions will enhance the Asian Forum. In this context the Asian Forum will work closely with Mr David Thompson (Jobs Australia) in securing the partnership of other networks

These are some of the points that I could remember. Please be free to give me your comments and corrections. In addition if I have forgotten something you said please let me know. If you have more ideas and suggestions please email them to me as soon as possible. Please also forgive me if there are any grammar and spelling mistakes as I did not have sufficient time to recheck them as I was trying to rush this first to you as soon as possible.

Let’s keep the lines of communication and lets be in touch

denison