Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Symposium/Special Issue
  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In this article, we use the terms “peasant” and “peasant seeds” because they reflect the ontologies used by the actors themselves as distinctive political markers (Osman and Chable 2009; Demeulenaere 2014, 2018).

  2. EU directive 66/402/EEC, dated the 14th of June, 1966, allows derogations to the marketing of certified seed in relation to (i) bred seed of generations prior to the basic seed; (ii) for tests or for scientific purposes; (iii) for selection work; and (iv) for seed as grown and marketed for processing, provided that the identity of the seed is ensured (Art.3). However, national legislation in many European countries remains restrictive.

  3. IAD/SES framework: Institutional Analysis and Development/Social-Ecological System Framework.

  4. A useful distinction introduced by Ostrom (1990, 2005) is that between the reproductive “resource system” managed in common (here, the seed commons) and the “resource unit” (the seeds) that can be privately appropriated or used, as defined by seed laws and other informal rules.

  5. Olson (1965) also predicted that bargaining and strategic interactions associated with the classic social dilemma of possible non-cooperative behavior or individual “free riding” would be less intense and managed differently in inclusive groups (Ostrom et al. 1994; Ostrom 2003), as observed in our study. Other dimensions promoting cooperative behaviors, such as self-determination and intrinsic motivation, are here at stake.

  6. The IAD/SES framework has been continuously amended to better integrate these social and cognitive dimensions, and by shifting from “resources users” to “actors” (McGinnis and Ostrom 2014).

  7. The term “commoners”, while mainly used in the English historical context, refers to people living of and being involved with the commons (Linebaugh 2008; Singh 2017). There is often no equivalent term in other languages. The French peasants surveyed in our study do not refer to themselves as “commoners”.

  8. Pénin (2011) differentiated Open Source Innovation (OSI), discussed by Kloppenburg (2010) in the context of plant breeding, from the concept of “Open Innovation” as defined by Von Hippel (2005), in which end users’ and grassroots community-based innovations are central, as promoted by the maker movement and its motto “do-it-yourself” (DIY). This latter concept is referenced in our study.

  9. A year before our survey, in 2017, the PWBG officially included, according to the RSP website, 12 collective groups, 87 individual peasants actively involved in the PWBG, 15 facilitators and 10 other members from research and technical institutes, such as INRA, ITAB, CIRAD and the Agricultural College of Purpan.

  10. A key step was that the PWBG members reclaimed access rights to the landraces and ancient varieties retained by the National Seed Collection for small grain cereals managed by the public research institute INRA in Clermont-Ferrand, which is in charge of the ex situ conservation of small grain cereals in France (Demeulenaere 2014).

  11. Demeulenaere et al. (2017) introduce the term “collaborative breeding”, instead of “participatory breeding”, to better reflect the equal position of the peasants and researchers.

  12. For example, some peasants sought varieties that were resistant to drought stress caused by dry climates and hot seasons and to lodging; others looked for varieties with quality traits for baking and milling purposes (nutritional and organoleptic qualities) or for cattle feeding (high straw wheat).

  13. The list of collective groups involved in the PWBG, as well as their characteristics, is summarized in Table 5 in the Annex, which provides information about group size, date of creation, and number of varieties handled.

  14. Inspired by the Brazilian concept of “casas de sementes criollas”, or in Columbia, “casas communautarias de semillas”, the term PSHs expresses the relational and stewardship dimensions of seed activities (Lewrouw et al. 2014). More recently, the term “community seed bank” (CSB) has been introduced (Koller et al. 2018).

  15. In addition, the RSP also developed a collaborative and interactive web platform called “Spicilège” (http://www.spicilege.org) on cultivated agrobiodiversity and ancient varieties non-covered by the Proprietary Varieties Certificate (PVC). See also Collectif (2015) and the book prepared by Groupe Blé Ardear and Brier (2019) for a historical survey of local small grains cereals landraces and ancient varieties in France.

  16. Throughout the training sessions, the groups pay specific attention to the creation of a collective awareness and consciousness among their members of the existing legal rules and to ensuring compliance with the group’s rules and ethics. If evidence is found that individuals or groups are not in alignment with these ethics, they could be expelled. When a new peasant becomes involved, the sponsorship of another long-standing member is recommended, as are attending group meetings and becoming familiarized with the charter and the group rules. In addition, a field visit to the new member’s farm is made to assess its specific environment.

  17. The formal administrative documentation adopted includes membership forms for regular members as well as specific multiplication/propagation conventions but does not include a compensation clause (no flat rate or fees), as all members are unpaid volunteers.

  18. The formal documentation includes formal membership forms (including a fixed annual membership fee), acceptance of the internal regulations and charter, and written conventions for the provision of land plots for seed conservation and multiplication (including technical specifications to be applied by the peasant), in addition to a convention for technical support.

  19. Here, the notion of a local or regional “platform” does not necessarily refer to a centralized place, as these platforms can take the form of distributed land plots managed by different peasants in each association.

  20. The guidelines are optional, but at the time of the survey, they had been adopted by all the groups except two: Agri Bio 04 and MSP 46. They include information and recommendations on the experimental settings and analytical tools to be used to facilitate the data treatment and comparison, seed access, withdrawal and rights to use the seeds, and data management (Rivière et al. 2013).

  21. Recent adjustments by the 2016 French seed law n°2016-1087 of 8 August 2016 on “the reconquest of biodiversity”, as well as the new EU regulation (R(CE) 848/2018) authorizing the marketing of organic heterogeneous material and organic variety suitable for organic production after 2022, provide more leeway for peasant seed activities. Remaining regulatory shackles deal with seed quality standards and seed certification processes (Wattnem 2016).

References

  • Acheson, James. 2003. Capturing the commons. Devising institutions to manage the maine lobster industry. Lebanon: University Press of New England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, Krister, and Elinor Ostrom. 2008. Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric perspective. Policy Science 41 (1): 71–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, Fikret. 2009. Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management 90: 1692–1702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, Fikret, Johan Colding, and Carl Folke. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications 10 (5): 1251–1262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bocci, Riccardo, and Véronique Chable. 2008. Semences paysannes en Europe: enjeux et perspectives. Cahiers Agricultures 17 (2): 216–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollier, David, and Silke Helfrich. 2012. The wealth of the commons: A world beyond market and state. Amherst: Leveller Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonneuil, Christophe, and Elise Demeulenaere. 2007. Une génétique de pair à pair ? L’émergence de la sélection participative ». In Les sciences citoyennes. Vigilance collective et rapport entre profane et scientifique dans les sciences naturalistes, ed. F. Charvolin, A. Micoud, and L.L. Nyhart, 122–147. La Tour d’Aigues: Ed. De l’Aube.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonneuil, Christophe, and Frédéric Thomas. 2009. Gènes, pouvoirs et profits, Recherche publique et régimes de production des savoirs de Mendel aux OGM. Versailles: Quae.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnin, Isabelle, Christophe Bonnieux, Robin Goffaux, Pierre Montalent, and Isabelle Goldringer. 2014. Agriculture, explaining the decrease in the genetic diversity of wheat in France over the 20th century. Ecosystems and Environment 195: 183–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, James. 2003. The second enclosure movement and the construction of the public domain. Law and Contemporary Problems 66: 33–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brac de la Perrière, Robert. 2014. Semences Paysannes, Plantes de Demain. Paris: Ed. Charles Léopold Mayer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvet-Mir, Laura, Maria Calvet-Mir, Jose Luis Molina, and Victoria Reyes-García. 2012. Seed exchange as an agrobiodiversity conservation mechanism. A case study in Vall Fosca, Catalan Pyrenees, Iberian Peninsula. Ecology and Society 17 (1): 29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ceccarelli, Salvatore, and Stefania Grando. 2007. Decentralized-participatory plant breeding: An example of demand driven research. Euphytica 155: 349–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, Daniel, Graham Epstein, and Mickael McGinnis. 2019. Combining the IAD and SES frameworks. International Journal of the Commons 13 (1): 244–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collectif d’auteurs. 2015. Gérer collectivement la biodiversité cultivée. Educagri Editions.

  • Coomes, Oliver, Shawn McGuire, Eric Garine, Sophie Caillon, Doyle McKey, Elise Demeulenaere, et al. 2015. Farmer seed network make a limited contribution to agriculture ? Four common misconceptions. Food Policy 56: 41–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darré, Jean-Pierre. 1996. L’invention de la pratique dans l’agriculture. Vulgarisation et production locale de connaissance. Paris: Karthala.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, Julie, Pierre Rivière, Jean François Berthellot, Florent Mercier, Patrick de Kochko, Nathalie Galic, et al. 2011. Collaborative plant breeding for organic agricultural systems in developed countries. Sustainability 3 (8): 1206–1223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Oliveira Yannick, Laura Burlot, Isabelle Goldringer, et al. 2020. SHiNeMaS: A database and its web application dedicated to seed lots history, phenotyping and cultural practices. BioInformatics forthcoming.

  • Demeulenaere, Elise. 2013. Les semences entre critique et expérience: les ressorts pratiques d’une contestation paysanne. Revue d’Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement 94 (4): 421–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demeulenaere, Elise. 2014. A Political ontology of seeds: The transformative frictions of a farmer’ movement in Europe. Journal of Global and Historical Anthropology 69: 45–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demeulenaere, Élise. 2018. ‘Free our seeds!’Strategies of farmers’ movements to reappropriate seeds. In The commons, plant breeding and agricultural research, ed. Fabien Girard and Christine Frison, 210–225. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Demeulenaere, Elise, and Isabelle Goldringer. 2017. Semences et transition agro écologique: Initiatives paysannes et sélection participative comme innovations de rupture. Natures, Sciences et Sociétés 4: 55–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demeulenaere, Élise, Pierre Rivière, Alexandre Hyacinthe, et al. 2017. La sélection participative à l’épreuve du changement d’échelle. Trajectoire d’une collaboration entre paysans sélectionneurs et généticiens de terrain. Natures Sciences Sociétés 25 (4): 336–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolinska, Aleksandra, and Patrick d’Aquino. 2016. Farmers as agents in innovation systems. Empowering farmers for innovation through communities of practices. Agricultural Systems 142: 122–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, Mary. 1986. How institutions think. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enjalbert, Jerome, Julie Dawson, Sophie Paillard, Bénédicte Rhoné, Yves Rousselle, Thomas Matthieu, and Isabelle Goldringer. 2011. Dynamic management of crop diversity: From an experimental approach to on-farm conservation. Compte Rendu Biologies 334 (5–6): 458–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Euler, Johannes. 2018. Conceptualizing the commons: Moving beyond the goods-based definition by introducing the social practices of commoning as vital determinant. Ecological Economics 143: 10–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frischmann, Brett, Michael Madison, and Katherine Strandburg. 2014. Governing knowledge commons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, Paul. 2013. Deskilling, agrobiodiversity, and the seed trade: A view from contemporary British allotments. Agriculture and Human Values 30: 101–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girard, Fabien, and Christine Frison. 2018. The commons, plant breeding and agricultural research challenges for food security and agrobiodiversity. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goldringer, Isabelle, Jerome Enjalbert, Pierre Rivière, and Dawson J. Julie. 2012. Recherche participative pour des variétés adaptées à une agriculture à faible niveau d’intrants et moins sensibles aux variations climatiques. Pour 213 (1): 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groupe Blé ARDEAR, and Matthieu Brier. 2019. Notre pain est politique. Les blés paysans face à l’industrie boulangère. Dernière Lettre Edition.

  • Hardin, Garret. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243–1248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harkoff, Dietmar, and Karim Lakahni. 2016. Revolutioning innovation: Users, communities and open innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, Charlotte. 2010. Commoning knowledge: Working together to preserve our cultural wealth. http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/meetings/documents/ndiipp10/HessKeynote_072010.ppt.

  • Hess, Charlotte. 2012. The unfolding of the knowledge commons. St Antony’s International Review 8 (1): 13–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, Charlotte, and Elinor Ostrom. 2003. Ideas, artefacts and facilities: Information as a common-pool-resource. Law and Contemporary Problems 66: 111–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, Charlotte, and Elinor Ostrom. 2007. Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaul, Inge. 2003. Providing global public goods: Managing globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kloppenburg, Jack. 2010. Impeding dispossession, enabling repossession: Biological open source and the recovery of seed sovereignty. Journal of Agrarian Change 10 (3): 367–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koller, Beste, Béla Bartha, Riccardo Bocci, María Carrascosa, Pierre Riviére, and Régine Andersen. 2018. Community seed banks in Europe. EU Project DIVERSIFOOD.

  • Kotschi, Johannes, and Bernd Horneburg. 2018. The open source seed licence: A novel approach to safeguarding access to plant germplasm. PLoS Biol 16: 10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, Peter. 2007. Collective action, civic engagement, and the knowledge commons. In Governing knowledge commons, ed. Hess Charlotte and Elinor Ostrom, 247–276. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewrouw, Fanny, Drochon, Laureline, Kastler Guy, De Kochko, Patrick, Lapprand Emilie, and Frédéric. Latour. 2014. Maisons de Semences Paysannes. Regards sur la gestion de la biodiversité cultivée en France. RSP.

  • Linebaugh, Peter. 2008. The Magna Carta Manifesto liberties and commons for all. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Madison, Michael, Brett Frischman, and Katherine Strandburg. 2010. Constructing Commons in the cultural environment. Cornell Law Review 95: 656–709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazé, Armelle, Aida Calabuig Domenech, and Isabelle Goldringer. 2021. Restoring cultivated agrobiodiversity: The political ecology of knowledge networks between peasant seed groups in France. Ecological Economics 179: 106821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGinnis, Mickael, and Elinor Ostrom. 2014. Social-ecological system framework: Initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology and Society 19 (2): 30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nightingale, Andrea. 2019. Commoning for inclusion? Political communities, commons, exclusion, property and socio-natural becomings. International Journal of the Commons 13: 16–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North, Douglas. 2005. Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, Mancur. 1965. The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, Elinor. 2000. Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives 14 (3): 137–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, Elinor. 2002. Property-rights regimes and common goods: A complex link. In Common goods: Reinventing European Integration Governance. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

  • Ostrom, Elinor. 2003. How types of goods and property rights jointly affect collective action. Journal of Theoretical Politics 15 (3): 239–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, Elinor. 2005. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, Elinor. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325 (5939): 419–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, Elinor. 2011. Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies Journal 39 (1): 2–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, Elinor. 2014. Do institutions for collective action evolve? Journal of Bioeconomics 16 (1): 3–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, Elinor, and Xavier Basurto. 2011. Crafting analytical tools to study institutional change. Journal of Institutional Change 7 (3): 317–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, Elinor, and Mickael Cox. 2010. Moving beyond panaceas: A multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis. Environmental Conservation 37: 451–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osman, Art, and Véronique Chable. 2009. Inventory of initiatives on seeds of landraces in Europe. Journal of Agriculture and Environment for International Development 103 (1/2): 95–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, Elinor, Roy Gardner, and James Walker. 1994. Rules, games, and common-pool resources. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, Vincent, and Elinor Ostrom. 1977. Public goods and public choices. In Alternatives for delivering public services: Towards improved performance, ed. E. Savas. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl, Claudia. 2009. A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change 19: 354–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pautasso, Marco, Guntra Astara, Adeline Barnaud, Sophie Caillon, Pascal Clouvel, Olivier Coomes, et al. 2013. Seed exchange networks for agrobiodiversity conservation. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 33: 151–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pénin, Julien. 2011. Open source innovation: Towards a generalization of the open source model beyond software. Revue d’économie industrielle 1 (136): 65–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimbert, Michel. 2011. Participatory research and on-farm management of agricultural biodiversity in Europe. London: IIED.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, Michael. 1969. In Knowing and being, ed. Marjorie Grene. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Provan, Keith, and Patrick Kenis. 2007. Modes of network governance, structure management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18 (2): 229–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reyes-Garcia, Victoria, Petra Benyei, and Laura Calvet-Mir. 2018. Traditional agricultural knowledge as commons. In Routledge handbook of food as commons, ed. José Luis Vivero-Pol, Tomaso Ferrando, Olivier de Schutter, and Ugo Mattei. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivière, Pierre. 2014. Méthodologie de la sélection décentralisée et participative: un exemple sur le blé tendre. Thèse de doctorat en génétique: Université Paris XI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivière, Pierre, Sophie Pin, Nathalie Galic, Yannick de Oliviera, Olivier David, Julie Dawson, et al. 2013. Mise en place d’une méthodologie de sélection participative sur le blé en France. Innovations Agronomiques 32: 427–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarker, Ashutov, and William Blomquist. 2019. Addressing misperceptions of governing the commons. Journal of Institutional Economics 15 (2): 281–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, Neera. 2017. Becoming a commoner: The commons as sites for affective socio-nature encounters and co-becomings. Ephemera Theory & Politics in Organization 14 (4): 751–776.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperling, Louise, Jacqueline Ashby, M.E. Smith, Eva Weltzien, and Shawn McGuire. 2001. A framework for analyzing participatory plant breeding approaches and results. Euphytica 122: 439–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stengers, Isabelle. 2018. Another science is possible. A manifesto for slow science. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, Matthieu, Julie Dawson, Isabelle Goldringer, and Christophe Bonneuil. 2011. Seed exchanges, a key to analyze crop diversity dynamics in farmer-led on-farm conservation. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 58: 321–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velten, Sarah, Tamara Schaal, Julia Leventon, Jan Hanspach, Joern Fischer, and Jens Newig. 2018. Rethinking biodiversity governance in European agricultural landscapes: Acceptability of alternative governance scenarios. Land Use Policy 77: 84–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel, Eric. 2005. Democratizing innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wattnem, Tamara. 2016. Seed laws, certification and standardization: Outlawing informal seed systems in the global south. Journal of Peasant Studies 43 (4): 850–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wirz, Johannes, Peter Kunz, and Ueli Hurter. 2017. Seed as a commons. Breeding as a source for real economy, law and culture. Switzerland: Goetheanum and Fund for Crop Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolter, Hendrik, and Stefanie Sievers-Glotzbach. 2019. Bridging traditional and new commons: The case of fruit breeding. International Journal of the Commons 13 (1): 303–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was part of the research project “SENAC” (Social-Ecological Networks in A Changing world) supported by a grant overseen by the French National Research Agency (ANR) as part of the “Investments d’Avenir” Programme (LabEx BASC; ANR-11-LABX-0034). Additional funding was provided by the métaprogramme SusMCrop of INRAE. We thank all the peasants and local facilitators who provided their valuable time to answer our questions, and especially to Pierre Rivière, Alexandre Hyacinthe for their fruitful suggestions. Any errors remain ours.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, AgroParisTech, UMR SADAPT, 75005, Paris, France

    Armelle Mazé & Aida Calabuig Domenech

  2. Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, CNRS, AgroParisTech, GQE - Le Moulon, 91190, Gif-Sur-Yvette, France

    Isabelle Goldringer

  3. INRAE UMR SADAPT, 16 rue Claude Bernard, 75231, Paris Cedex 05, France

    Armelle Mazé

Authors
  1. Armelle Mazé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aida Calabuig Domenech
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Isabelle Goldringer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Armelle Mazé.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 5.

Table 5 Main attributes of local groups involved in the PWBG
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mazé, A., Calabuig Domenech, A. & Goldringer, I. Commoning the seeds: alternative models of collective action and open innovation within French peasant seed groups for recreating local knowledge commons. Agric Hum Values 38, 541–559 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10172-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10172-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation