A Java-filled dilemma over Downes' view of networks and groups

In answering this week's learning challenge from our guest facilitator (and fellow Aussie/Permie) Leigh Blackall, I'd like to consider the organic Coffee industry in Nepal as a model for focusing my thinking on his third question:

Is the individualism implicit in networks too problematic for people with cultural, family or political backgrounds that value collective identities?

Whoa! Organic coffee, open governance and networks - where is this nexus of seemingly divergent ideas coming from?

Well, if you're a fellow member/networker in Peer to Peer University's (P2PU) 'Open Governance' course, you've probably see Leigh's blog and video of Stephen Downes, shot in New Zealand in 2006. If you haven't, then it is worth hot-linking yourself over to check them out.

As for that other type of Java (real Coffee), perhaps some background information about me will help fill in the blanks.

In looking to build skills for a simpler, more sustainable lifestyle, in 2008 I made a solo journey to Begnas Lake, to study a short course with the Nepal Permaculture Group. Graduating with a Permaculture Design Certificate (PDC) at the end of the most intensive, grueling and enjoyable (up to then) study programme in my entire life, I wanted to consolidate my learning with some practical work. I was blessed to find wonderful mentor in Surya Prasad Adikhari, so my beloved Maha and I ventured there together, spending four wonderful months of learning-by-doing, as volunteer permaculture interns.

A pioneer in the region, Surya-ji's farm is an abundant food forest, whose under-story comprises over two thousand coffee bushes and the pulping centre he established, now services the crop from over 300 growers - for whom the seedlings from his nursery have provided one of the sources of their growing livelihood. But what is at the core of that livelihood? A strong, cooperative, governance framework.

Every year, growers, pulping centres, exporters come together to under the facilitation of the Government of Nepal’s National Tea and Coffee Development Board (NTCDB), to agree on prices for the year ahead. Prices for raw beans (grower), prices for dried beans (pulper) and the export price per kilogram for cleaned or roasted beans (exporter). Is this about control - to an extent - but one to which the industry sees a broader benefit, where all sectors in the production chain, are clear about the future market price of the commodities they produce and enjoy a level playing field.

Directive? Yes, but with good representation and what members of all three non-Government sectors described to me as an amicable and positive working relationship, there seems to my joyful eyes to be not only a blurring of the "coordination versus autonomy", but also the "distributive versus connective" elements which Stephen Downes seems to want to put at loggerheads.

There is great scope for individualism, from families with twenty bushes who may bring just one fifth of one kilogram at time for pulping, to more dedicated farmers who have a thousand or more bushes and struggle along to the pulping centre with 25-40 kilograms in the bag hanging off the tump-line round their foreheads.

Conversely, Nepal's communal approach also extends beyond just this single cash crop, as the area is undergoing a community-based, organic certification process. On the basis that if one member fails a certification audit, the certification for all is compromised, this system further entrenches the reliance of network members on each other.

By contrast, when I think of the latent desire I harbour to set up a similar system for the production and marketing of Olives in Pakistan, I know that there is a long way to go before we could get past people's sense of self-interest to operate such a cooperative model.

Is it cultural background which drives the collective identity of the organic Coffee industry in Nepal? Is individualism too problematic? I suspect the either/or (almost exclusionary) approach that Stephen Downes puts forward to defining what I see as a network, may be countermanded by this positive, practical and functioning model.

What do you think?

PS:
If you're into armchair travel, feel free to browse photos from our stay on Surya-ji's farm. They're in the Photos tab of my facebook page, entitled Memories of Nepal (1, 2, 3, 4) and Abundance.

Norms - explicit and implied

What a fascinating introduction to the course and full marks to our fellow-student and facilitator, Phillip Schmidt, for a great set of introductory readings.

I managed to turn up one possible resource, being a contemporary look at the world of media law, as at September 2010. But be careful. It's a massive 316pp document on legalities affecting the way we use the Net. http://bit.ly/ddcs5L

Getting back into the swing of writing assignments has been a challenge, as has making time to depart from my creative writing (poetry) to look at and comment on the work of others (and hopefully respond to things that may arise as a result of these musings). So, on with this week's written questions.

1) What are some of the norms in communities you are a participant in that affect governance of that community?

I'm going to contrast my work environment in two overlapping communities, as well as one online e-forum which is a great source of my learning about permaculture.

Firstly the norms (as I see them) of my broader organisational community - an international NGO working in the humanitarian and development sector - and those of the Yammer group it has spawned.

In the wider organisational context, norms and their impact on governance seem at first glance to be quite removed from each other. Yes, we have values, policies and procedures and a governance framework which all look fine. But the ideas of inclusion and working across departments for a common purpose are quite at odds with each other - as revealed in a recent set of externally-facilitated focus group discussions. Dissatisfaction with the disconnect between intent and actualisation, runs deep. As a relative newcomer listening to people many years my senior (in terms of their length of employment), I found this quite startling.

Conversely, the Yammer group is an area where new ideas and debate are encouraged, criticism is not taken personally and the nett result produces a rich, vibrant, inclusive and uplifting (for me) dialogue. Curiously though, the norms here are unwritten. On the one hand I suspect that they are informed by the values inherent in the broader organisational community, but I can't help wondering if it is members' desire to live these values in a more open space, which is driving the abundant collaboration.

Meanwhile, over at the permaculture list - mostly where I lurk and learn, rather than actively contribute to discussion - norms don't seem to be explicit. Invoked when the debate gets a little too hot, they seem to be a function of the list-owner's values, rather than those of the community, sometimes resulting in folk being banned for simply stating their views in a somewhat passionate/strident manner.


2) How are these norms communicated to new joiners?

As part of induction for newcomers, orientation sessions are run to share my INGOs broader organisational values, whereas the Yammer and permaculture groups do not make an effort to communicate its norms.


3) How important is it to explicitly state the norms? How much can be picked up from "observing"?

As a facilitator, it is part of my practice to either tease out the norms at the opening of a session, or explicitly state them when working with new groups to ensure that we are working from a set of common values. This has been a challenge at times, especially in conservative, patriarchal-dominant communities, where the voices of women and youth are repressed. To counter such misogyny, I have tended to adopt a more autocratic approach than I would in more liberal groups. See an example of this on the third slide of a presentation I made some time ago to a very diverse group - and one in which I had to go back to the ground rules when one antsy mullah started abusing a young female student, telling her she had no right to speak!

Observation is vital in the face of both a lack of explicit norms and the failure to live them, or as in Sapolsky's Baboon example, where there is no culture of literacy.

The radiolab story of Silverton, Oregon's mayor, Stu Rasmussen, offers an interesting example of adaptation by his community to the acceptance of 'other', again, where the norms are neither explicit, nor it seems, immutable. The townsfolks' observations of and supportive reaction to Stu's condemnation by less accepting visitors from Kansas, struck me as an excellent example of humanity at its best and most adaptive.

Learning from and comments on fellow students' blogs this week ...

@Greg:
"I see much of the governance in the community as process based not norm based."
I like the way you link that to motivation. Nice example, thanks.

@Jason:
Good point about the importance of leadership and vision and the difference between common interest and common direction.

Looking forward to learning more in the weeks ahead.