Network Sovereignties as Vehicles for Land and Housing Commons

Introduction

In light of growing global challenges around housing accessibility and environmental degradation, rethinking property rights has become increasingly relevant. This study addresses the question: How can emerging land and housing commons network sovereignties, become more autonomous and resilient, and contribute to creating equitable, free, and regenerative societies?

The hypothesis posits that by advancing network sovereignties, land and housing commons-based models can not only better resist market and state pressures but also become more replicable at the local scale, enabling broader impact at a global level. This approach fosters sustained access to affordable housing, regenerative land use, and community-centered solutions, positioning network sovereignties as innovative vehicles for social and ecological resilience within land and housing commons.

The article begins by exploring property rights paradigms and analyzing historical commons-based land models and their dispossession, followed by a modern analysis of network sovereignties through the case of Fundació Emprius –a network sovereignty managing housing, land, livestock and knowledge as commons in the Catalan rural area. Finally, it offers insights into structural models and technologies that could enhance autonomy, resilience, and scalability in land and housing commons.

Private Ownership as a Force of Dispossession, Degradation and Impoverishment

The prevailing systems of modern property rights, underpinned by centuries-old legal doctrines and capitalist market dynamics, have significantly altered the landscape of communal land and housing. Rooted in notions of absolute ownership and the right to exclude, these systems have prioritized individual wealth accumulation, often at the expense of community well-being and environmental sustainability.

The expansion of private ownership has significantly contributed to the dispossession of communal lands, often stripping communities of resources that they have historically stewarded. Between 2001 and 2020, over 100 million hectares of community-owned land across Africa, Asia, and Latin America were converted to private ownership, displacing approximately 60 million people, particularly in the Global South (Rights and Resources Initiative, 2023). Still there's an estimated 2.5 billion people who rely on communal lands for their livelihoods—whether for agriculture, grazing, or cultural practices. Dispossession of the commons not only erodes social and economic stability but also disrupts the intergenerational knowledge embedded in communal land management. The report indicates that while communities hold significant customary rights over land, formal legal recognition remains low. Only 18% of land area in the countries studied is formally recognized as owned or controlled by local communities and Indigenous Peoples, highlighting a critical gap that exacerbates dispossession.

Environmental degradation is frequently linked to private ownership models that prioritize short-term profit over sustainable land management. The United Nations Environment Programme reports that around 70% of global deforestation is driven by agricultural expansion on private lands, primarily for commodities like cattle and soy. In the Amazon, deforestation surged by 80% from 2013 to 2019 due largely to privately-owned cattle ranches and soy plantations (UNEP, 2021). The UN reports on their Global Annual Outlook that unsustainable practices, commonly associated with private ownership, lead to the annual loss of an estimated 24 billion tons of fertile soil, contributing to long-term soil degradation, water scarcity, and biodiversity loss (UNCCD, 2017). In contrast, Rights and Resources Initiative, indicates that lands managed communally, particularly by indigenous communities, show lower deforestation rates and richer biodiversity. Communal management often emphasizes long-term environmental stewardship over profit maximization, underscoring the ecological advantages of commons-based governance (Ostrom, 1990).

The dispossession of communal lands through private ownership models has profound implications for impoverishment, particularly among vulnerable populations. A staggering 1.5 billion people globally lack legally recognized rights to their ancestral lands, which are essential for securing livelihoods and generating income (Rights and Resources Initiative, 2023). This lack of secure property rights often results in increased poverty; for example, communities experiencing land dispossession face poverty rates that can exceed 30% compared to those with secure land tenure (Galiani, Schargrodsky, 2010). Additionally, the World Bank reports that countries with insecure land tenure experience agricultural productivity that is 30% lower than those with secure rights, further entrenching poverty cycles (World Bank, 2021). The dynamics of private ownership not only strip communities of their resources but also exacerbate existing inequalities, reinforcing the cycle of impoverishment and social instability.

Font: Image generated with Midjourney

Paradigms of Land Property Rights: Private, Collective, and Stewarded

The Western concept of property ownership isn’t just a legal framework—it's a philosophical cage that has trapped our understanding of freedom itself. As we grapple with today’s polycrisis, described in greater length here (link!!), we must confront an uncomfortable truth: our very notion of property rights may be at the root of our interconnected ecological and social challenges.

Private Property: Freedom as Ownership

In fact, the idea of private property is fairly new. In Two Treatises of Government, 17th century philosopher John Locke argued that individuals had a natural right to “life, liberty, and property”—property being an extension of one’s labor. In Locke’s view, mixing one’s labor with resources made them private property, which the individual had the freedom to use, exclude others from, and control. Thus, freedom manifested as the right to acquire, maintain, and control possessions without interference from others. Later on, individual property rights became one of the foundational pillars of the capitalist market ideology.

In this vision, the human being becomes an isolated “I” —detached from community, tradition, ethnicity, religion, and nature— whose freedom is expressed through ownership. In words of Thompson:

The combination of property law with capitalist markets and state enforcement of contracts has created a powerful narrative of freedom – but a freedom that’s mostly reserved for owners as the liberal system leads to and supports concentrations of ownership and a system of power relations [...] which negates the ethical goal of free and independent individual development (Thompson, 1993).

Perhaps no one captured this ideology more starkly than William Blackstone, whose 1753 treatise became a cornerstone of Anglo-American property law. His definition of property as “sole and despotic dominion” reads today like a manifesto of disconnection—a legal blueprint for severing the threads that bind human society and ecosystems together. While Locke attempted to temper this absolutist view with his famous proviso acknowledging our interconnectedness, his caveat was swept aside by the tide of capitalist expansion (Bollier & Helfrich, 2019, p. 216).

Collective Property: A Partial Solution

Counterintuitively, in 18th century Enlightenment philosopher Rousseau emphasized in The Social Contract the importance of collective will, the general will, over individual interests in achieving a fair society laying groundwork for later socialist thought. In A New View of Society and extended in The Book of the New Moral World both written by 19th century socialist philosopher Robert Owen proposed cooperative communities based on collective ownership and governance for the first time as a means to address the exploitation of workers within the capitalist framework, fostering social cohesion and moral development. In his own words:

In the new moral world, the happiness of individuals will be found to depend upon their social condition, and the social condition will depend upon the establishment of communities where property is held in common (Owen, 1816).

Collective property emerged as a reaction to the extractive effects of private ownership, offering an alternative framework that seeks to distribute property rights among multiple owners. This paradigm is often supported by cooperatives, trusts, and nonprofits, which aim to foster collaboration and shared responsibility within communities.

***

At first glance, collective property appears to offer an alternative to the isolating nature of private ownership. But beneath this surface-level distinction lies a deeper truth: collective property often replicates the same fundamental flaws of private ownership, merely spreading them across a wider base. As Bollier and Helfrich astutely observe, collective property fails to overcome the structural biases embedded in property itself: the right to exclude, the market’s dominion over value, and the power of owners to dictate the fate of both nature and community.

When property values rise, even collective property can be bought out by those with more money and sold out by co-owners abandoning their mutual commitments. Mission-driven organizations may gradually transform into market competitors, their original purpose eroded by economic pressures. The owners of a co-op, for example, upon seeing an appreciation of the market value of their collective owned homes, may decide to cash out. Or its leaders may decide to turn away from a mission of mutual support and become a market competitor that functions as a quasi-corporation. Even trusts and foundations, despite their protective legal structures, can be liquidated by trustees with little regard for beneficiaries’ interests.

Stewarded Property: Beyond Ownership

Private and collective ownership perpetuate the myth of absolute dominion over resources. Stewardship offers a radical reimagining of human relationships with property. This isn't merely a semantic shift—it represents a fundamental transformation in how we conceive of our role within the interconnectedness of life. Drawing on Elinor Ostrom’s groundbreaking work on commons management (1990) and centuries of indigenous wisdom, the stewardship model charts a path beyond the limitations of conventional property rights.

The model reframes our relationship with property, emphasizing our role as caretakers rather than absolute owners. While stewardship provides clear rights of access and use, no single party or faction holds absolute legal control over the wealth, and crucially, no one has the authority to sell it. This structure protects resources from both internal capture and external alienation (Bollier and Helfrich, 2019).

It’s crucial that communal resources have robust legal protections to prevent them from falling into a state of false commons (can be dispossessed) or res nullius (nobody's property). The absence of property rights can result in communal resources being viewed as unowned, making them vulnerable to external appropriation and degradation– the tragedy of the commons scenario.

This underscores the necessity for a framework that not only promotes collective stewardship but also enshrines legal safeguards to ensure that communal properties are managed sustainably and equitably while preventing the pitfalls associated with both privatization and neglect. Legal systems even need to include new categories of property that reflect communal interests (Rochfeld et al, 2021). For example, French legal study L’échelle de communalité introduces a groundbreaking framework for integrating common goods into law, emphasizing the balance between private property and communal interests. It proposes the concept of "common heritage" as a constitutional-level regime that safeguards resources of collective importance through principles such as conservation, participation, and non-regression.

Bollier and Helfrich (2019) —both contemporary authors and activists on commons-based approaches to resource management— lay out three key concepts that illuminate the transformative potential of stewardship:

1. Possession: Rather than merely denoting physical control, possession under stewardship establishes new social relationships and responsibilities. This aligns with indigenous understandings where long-term occupation and care for land generate legitimate claims. The focus shifts from ‘exchange value’ to ‘use value’—from the right to buy and sell to the right to inhabit and nurture.
2. Custom: Property rights emerge not just from formal legal structures but from established community practices and norms. This recognition of local knowledge and traditions in managing shared resources provides a framework for more responsive and contextual governance systems.
3. Inalienability: Perhaps most crucially, stewardship challenges the great fiction of modern capitalism identified by Polanyi (1944): that land, labor, and money must be treated as commodities. By establishing that certain resources are too fundamental to be bought and sold, inalienability offers a practical path toward decommodifying the basic elements of human flourishing.

Font: Image generated with Midjourney

The implications of this model are profound: Housing shifts from a speculative asset to a fundamental right, land management prioritizes long-term ecological health over short-term profit. Resources remain protected for future generations while meeting present needs. Communities develop governance systems reflecting their unique contexts. Individual freedom becomes reconciled with collective responsibility.

As our current property regime proves increasingly incompatible with the urgent need for equitable housing access and ecological sustainability, stewardship offers more than theoretical appeal. It provides a tested framework for reimagining our relationship with property, drawing on both ancient wisdom and modern insights to chart a path toward more just and sustainable futures.

Historical Examples of Commons Lands (and their Dispossession)

The wisdom of stewardship is embedded in numerous historical traditions that successfully managed resources for generations through customary law. However, many of these communities have been marginalized, overlooked, or forcibly assimilated into economic systems that disregard their practices and knowledge. The story of how we lost our commons is not a simple tale of progress but a global saga of systematic dispossession. Across the Americas, Africa, Europe, and Asia, communities that had sustainably managed their environments through collective governance and traditional practices saw their rights stripped away—often through violence, legal manipulation, or economic coercion—as a consequence of colonialism and the rise of capitalism.

Font: Image generated with Midjourney

Take, for example, the Haudenosaunee (“People of the Longhouse”), a Native American alliance of several tribes practicing collective land stewardship. Their sophisticated governance system reflected a deep commitment to intergenerational responsibility, with decisions made not only for immediate needs but with consideration for the impact on the next seven generations. Yet, this centuries-old wisdom was forcibly displaced by colonial powers in the 17th and 18th centuries through a combination of deceptive treaties and military force.

The English Commons tell an equally poignant tale. These weren’t just shared spaces; they were the lifelines of rural communities, governed by intricate customs and local courts. The Enclosure Acts (1600s-1800s) didn’t simply redistribute land—they orchestrated one of history’s most sweeping transfers of wealth, forcing countless rural families into urban factories. This wasn’t merely coincidental to the Industrial Revolution; it was instrumental to it (Hickel, 2017).

In East Africa, the Maasai people’s struggle illuminates how this pattern persists into the present day. Their traditional governance structures, which have successfully preserved delicate ecosystems for generations, now face an existential threat from the triple forces of privatization, commercial agriculture, and tourism. Their battle for land rights isn’t just about property—it’s about preserving a way of life that has proven its sustainability over centuries.

Japan’s iriaiken system offers a particularly nuanced example of how traditional commons can adapt—or fail to adapt—to modern pressures. These collectively managed lands, sustained through intricate networks of village knowledge, are now unraveling as younger generations, drawn away by individual economic opportunities, lose connection with traditional practices.

These historical commons reveal a profound truth: community sovereignty wasn’t granted by states or markets—it was inherent in the ability of people to govern themselves sustainably.

Yet when confronted with state power and market forces, these communities found their sophisticated traditional systems dismissed as informal or illegitimate. The tragedy isn’t that these systems failed; it’s that they were systematically undermined and replaced by a model that prioritizes individual profit over collective and environmental wellbeing.

Are Network Sovereignties the Answer?

The challenge of protecting housing and land commons from market enclosure and state control requires more than isolated solutions—it demands a fundamental reimagining of how communities can organize and protect their resources across scales. Network Sovereignties offers a powerful framework for transforming local housing initiatives into a resilient, interconnected system of commons-based governance.

As mentioned in the SOAM opening blogpost, a Network Sovereignty is “a community of various interconnected groups of actors united by shared interests or beliefs that governs itself with relative autonomy” (). These socio-political entities are nothing new—we can find examples all the way back to Ancient times. However, the advent of decentralized digital technologies such as blockchains and smart contracts has catalyzed a new wave of Network Sovereigties (link!!!) that leverage them for self-governance (De Filippi, 2024).

Historical attempts at commoning often failed not from internal weakness, but from external pressure. Individual communities, despite sophisticated governance systems, proved vulnerable to market forces and state intervention (Hickel, 2017; Bollier & Helfrich, 2019; Ostrom, 1990). Network Sovereignties can address this vulnerability through strategic interconnection, creating what we might call a “protective membrane” around land and housing commons through three key mechanisms:

1. Empowerment through unity: In a networked system, individual entities gain considerable influence over policy and legal domains by forming a unified front. This consolidation enables the network to counter market pressures and thwart privatization efforts effectively. Such collective fortitude, enhanced by the synergistic benefits of the network, establishes formidable defenses against external encroachments, safeguarding the network's foundational principles and operational integrity.

2. Interdependent resilience: Networks facilitate a dynamic distribution of resources, knowledge, and risk among their nodes, fostering an ecosystem of mutual aid. This interdependence ensures that when one part of the network encounters adversity, others can provide support, enhancing the network's capacity for endurance and flexible response. The shared commitment to collaborative problem-solving within the network reinforces its overall resilience and adaptability.

3. Cosmolocalism: Network structures can better support cosmolocalism—a developmental strategy that harmonizes local production with global exchange (Bauwens, 2017, 2018, 2019). By prioritizing local manufacture of tangible resources and simultaneous worldwide digital dissemination of information and knowledge, networks optimize resource utilization and innovation. This approach preserves local autonomy and enables efficient and sustainable practices across diverse geographic and cultural landscapes.

Additionally, land and housing commons that organize themselves as Network Sovereignties can make use of blockchains and smart contracts to strengthen their autonomy and resilience. Distributed ledgers can provide immutable records of stewardship rights and collective decisions, creating a transparent and verifiable foundation for network governance that can operate seamlessly across borders. Meanwhile, smart contracts can enable the automation and enforcement of commons-based rules, from managing access rights to implementing resource allocation systems, ensuring consistent and transparent management of shared resources. Together, these technologies create new possibilities for commons-based organization that can transcend traditional limitations while maintaining community values and local autonomy.

Many land and housing commons today operate as isolated nodes or maintain loose connections with each other, limiting their potential impact. By evolving into Network Sovereignties and incorporating innovative governance mechanisms, including ones supported by blockchain technology, these communities could achieve greater autonomy and resilience.

Below, I will examine how this evolution might unfold through the case of land and housing commons in Catalonia, focusing on Fundació Emprius as an example of a Network Sovereignty, before proposing a blueprint for addressing the challenges it is currently facing.

Land and Housing Commons in Catalonia

Catalonia offers a compelling case study in the reinvention of commons. While medieval Catalonia maintained extensive land commons (comunals) managed through customary rights, these systems were systematically dismantled through indebtedness, oligarchic capture, and ultimately, the Madoz Disentailment Law of 1855. This privatization led to increased inequality, power centralization, and rural decline. Still, approximately 20% of Catalonia’s forested area is managed as communal land, governed by collective entities and subject to rural use rights (emprius rights) for local residents (Algarra, 2020). The spirit of collective management has also persisted in Catalan civil society through various self-organizing networks. Examples include initiatives to preserve local traditions^[1], community-managed irrigation systems^[2], the promotion of regional products^[3], grassroots commons-based internet networks^[4], and efforts to assert the right to self-determination, as demonstrated by the bottom-up, nationwide referendum against central state authority in 2017^[5].

Font: Image generated with Midjourney

Catalonia's tradition of self-organization sparked its first modern experiments in collective housing during the 2007 housing bubble. Cal Cases pioneered this movement as a self-sufficient community project, drawing inspiration from diverse international models: the Andel housing cooperatives of Scandinavia^[6], Uruguay's FUCVAM movement, and Germany's Wohnprojekte communities. This initiative catalyzed further innovations in collective living, leading to the establishment of Ca la Fou in 2011—transforming an abandoned industrial colony into a postcapitalist eco-industrial community—and Mas les Vinyes in 2013, which emerged as both a self-sufficient community and an influential permaculture education center. Interestingly, Ca la Fou housed many blockchain pioneers, including Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin.

These projects paved the way to emergence of two housing Network Sovereignties: Sostre Cívic and La Dinamo. These networks have pioneered innovative approaches to housing commons through strategic collaboration with municipal authorities, often developing affordable housing on leased public land. Sostre Cívic, structured as a supra-cooperative encompassing 20 nodes and 203 homes with 1,500 members, emphasizes democratic governance and collective ownership. La Dinamo, organized as a foundation overseeing 43 homes, prioritizes long-term asset protection and social purpose. Despite their different legal structures—each with distinct advantages in balancing community participation with property protection—both networks have successfully created alternatives to market speculation while working toward Barcelona’s aspiration^[7] to match Vienna and Copenhagen's social housing levels of 50-60%^[8]. Their approach seeks to collectively create a self-regulating housing market that can address social needs more effectively than direct state intervention, especially when we can’t rely on state policies as they may be influenced by lobbying interests rather than public good.

However, while these urban initiatives demonstrate the potential of housing commons, rural areas in Catalonia face distinct challenges in housing accessibility and land management that remain largely unaddressed. This vulnerability in rural communities points to the importance of examining Fundació Emprius, a Network Sovereignty specifically focused on rural affordable housing and land commons, which offers crucial insights into how network sovereignties might evolve to protect and revitalize rural communities.

Fundació Emprius: A Communalist and Ruralist Network Sovereignty

Fundació Emprius is an organization dedicated to fostering a communal culture in catalan rural areas. Founded on the principles of communalism and ruralism, this foundation aims to revitalize and transform underused spaces in the countryside while promoting housing and land commons as an alternative to private property.

Origin
Founded in 2023, it emerged as a collaborative initiative among various rural intentional communities—some with over 13 years of experience—already connected through shared values, knowledge exchange, food production, and social and political networks within the so-called alternative movement.

Purpose
The foundation prioritizes community-based management of housing, land, infrastructure, and livestock to address the impacts of widespread privatization, which has led to rural depopulation, environmental degradation, abandoned housing, and economic inequality. It accomplishes this by acquiring properties for community use, managing land for cooperative farming, promoting shared access to essential rural tools, and fostering a culture of communal living.

Focusing on ecological regeneration, the foundation advocates for sustainable practices, such as permaculture, to enhance biodiversity. To combat rural depopulation, it promotes economically and socially viable communal living. By offering equitable land access, it addresses economic inequality and counters speculative real estate pressures. Emprius champions decentralized governance, empowering communities to collectively manage their land and resources, ensuring local stewardship and decision-making.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp5L2uKz1ks

Legal Entity
The organization operates as a foundation legally but incorporates cooperative principles and structures for power distribution, stakeholder engagement, and internal operations. This approach, based on community agreements within a state-based legal framework, allows for a high degree of member legitimacy.

• Foundation Board: Structured like a co-op governing board, it includes a President, Secretary, Treasurer, and three Committee Members, though legally it could expand to include more with full decision-making authority.
• Extended Board: This board, composed of the foundation’s founders and cooperative delegates, holds primary governance power and functional decision-making authority. The board is open to new members over time.
• Executive Director (Coordinator): A board member responsible for implementing decisions and acting as a liaison between guilds and the board.
• Operations Team: Executes Extended Board decisions through five guilds: Stewardship Supervision, Finances, Communications, Prospection (property viability and onboarding), and Community.
• Ambassadors: Representatives throughout Catalonia who can advocate for the organization.
• Advisory Council: Experts in fields like land commons, agroecology, law, solidarity economy, fundraising, and sustainable building who provide guidance to the Operations Team.
• Founding Communities (Delegates): Each community designates 1-2 members as “Extended Board” representatives, delegating governance responsibilities to them.
• Stewards: Members with rights to steward land or housing within each node, paying a monthly fee in exchange for stewardship.
• Donors: Mission-aligned individuals who support the organization financially, receiving tax deductions (30-40%, or 75% for donations under €150/year) but without governance rights.

Nodes’ Community Building & Membership
Each node approaches community building and membership differently, yet all draw from local networks, including alternative education schools, community orchards, cooperative supermarkets, cultural and sociopolitical associations. Members within each node share a common vision of housing and land as commons, collective living, and food and energy sovereignty as catalysts for systemic change against hyper-capitalism. This creates strong alignment in their political goals. For example, one node with over 80 members has established a self-sufficient space with orchards and workshops, providing food for members and selling two-thirds of the produce in their local shop. Exit from the network is voluntary. At the node scale exit requires notice and members get their initial membership fee (initial down payment) back.

Network’s Governance
On a network level, three full-day General Assemblies are held annually, adopting cooperative mechanisms. Participation is mandatory for the Board, Extended Board (including Community Delegates), and Operational Team, while Stewards may join voluntarily, as their delegates are already involved. These assemblies include work presentations, strategic proposals, discussions, and decisions, primarily made through consensus, avoiding any governance-by-wealth practices. For critical decisions impacting specific nodes, delegates consult their communities and bring collective input to the table; otherwise, information flows as needed.

Funding & Resource Management
Emprius’s funding sources include Steward contributions (with an endowment of at least €30,000), individual or business donations, government grants, and potentially revenue from educational activities or property use. At the network level, resources are allocated by the General Assembly, including property acquisitions and onboarding new nodes. Each node manages its own finances independently, with distinct economies, legal structures, decision-making processes, and conflict resolution methods—most relying on consensus through sociocracy for internal governance.

Approach to Sovereignty and Interface with Nation-State
In response to the unique social, political, economic, environmental, and cultural conditions of their local context, founding community members came together to provide for and sustain themselves independently of state structures. Their approach was collective self-organization, establishing interconnected nodes of land commons that gradually formed an interdependent network.

Their concept of sovereignty centers on achieving self-sufficiency and self-governance over shared resources. Operating in parallel with state structures, they create protective spaces (“exclosures”) to ensure that their managed commons remain outside state and market dynamics. While they leverage the existing legal foundation framework, they customize it internally to operate on trust-based agreements, allowing flexibility in governance. Additionally, they strategically adapt these systems to further their vision for systemic change. Examples include taking advantage of tax exemptions, using collective rather than individual mortgages, and modifying foundation governance for participatory decision-making.

Challenges

1. Resisting external capture: One key challenge for historical land commons has been resisting external captures. While Fundació Emprius leverages the best legal framework available to secure its operations, states and hyper-capitalist forces can still pose risks to public good initiatives.

2. Internal conflict resolution: Collective coordination introduces social and economic challenges. Property acquisition and maintenance costs can be substantial, especially given modest local wages. Effective conflict resolution will be essential, as fragmentation within nodes or the network would weaken their success and reinforce existing state-market dynamics.

3. Securing access to funding: Collective ownership entities like cooperatives often struggle to secure loans, as only ethical banks or mutual credit funds recognize them as reliable borrowers. With rising interest in cooperative housing in Catalonia, the limited funding allocation has created competition among projects, potentially hindering the growth of the Emprius network.

4. Balancing solidarity with sustainability: The network's commitment to maintaining economic accessibility and avoiding wealth-based decision-making presents challenges. Although significant down payments are required, waiving fees for members facing economic hardships can lead to financial strain, particularly when unexpected costs arise. Over time, this approach may create tensions and jeopardize the network's long-term economic sustainability.

5. Maintaining trust: Lastly, as the network scales, building trust-based structures and governance will become increasingly complex. Establishing clear, legitimate governance practices will be essential to sustain this growth.

Opportunities

1. Expansion: Looking forward, Emprius aims to support the sustainability and regeneration of rural environments by expanding its network and enhancing inter-cooperative self-sufficiency.

2. Ownership to the Network: The foundation is currently exploring terms for communities interested in transferring collective ownership of land and housing to the network, as no co-operative has formally done so yet. This step could deepen resource sharing and strengthen network unity.

3. Knowledge Sharing: Emprius also plans to share knowledge and tools on commons restoration, stewardship, affordable rural cohousing, and ecological regeneration. To achieve this, they are actively building partnerships with aligned organizations and recently secured public goods grants in the web3 space to support their mission.

A Blueprint for Increasing Autonomy and Resilience

Kelsie Nabben and Michael Zargham, in their paper Aligning ‘Decentralized Autonomous Organization’ to Precedents in Cybernetics, define autonomy and resilience as essential qualities for decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) within a cybernetic framework.

Autonomy in this context refers to a DAO’s ability to self-govern, allowing both individual and collective decision-making capacities to operate in alignment with the organization’s purpose. Drawing from the Viable Systems Model (VSM), autonomy is not simply about isolated independence; rather, it represents a balanced freedom for each component of the system to act in ways that contribute to the stability and viability of the organization as a whole.

Resilience, meanwhile, is a DAO’s capacity to adapt to changes or disruptions while preserving its purpose. Based on Ross Ashby’s concept of “requisite variety” in cybernetics, resilience requires enough diversity in governance and operations to respond effectively to challenges. The governance surface—adaptable rules and decision-making processes—strengthens resilience, allowing DAOs to “bounce back” from disruptions and maintain stability over time.

While Fundació Emprius has successfully established itself as a network sovereignty, its evolution into greater autonomy resilience requires transcending current limitations through innovative governance, economic, and technological mechanisms. This transformation could address existing challenges while creating new possibilities for more resilient commons-based housing and land stewardship.

Font: Image generated with Midjourney

Let’s briefly address suggestions for overcoming the challenges and opportunities with a focus on blockchain technology, legal structures of revenue generating mechanisms that apply to normal businesses.

1. Resisting External Capture

Building alliances across borders can significantly enhance collective resilience. By forming transnational networks, housing commons can share resources, knowledge, and best practices to resist external pressures such as market pressures and regulatory challenges. Blockchain technology can facilitate the coordination and governance mechanisms between alliances—putting in practice the cosmolocalism principles. At the same time parallel governance systems that combine formal legal compliance with informal community practices can be developed to allow communities to adhere to necessary legal standards while preserving their unique cultural values and decision-making traditions.

Implementing "double-shielding" strategies through parent organizations in jurisdictions with stronger legal protections can further safeguard against external capture by providing a buffer against market encroachment. Additionally, leveraging Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) in crypto-friendly European jurisdictions can empower housing commons to operate as self-governing entities, prioritizing collective decision-making and resource management. Together, these strategies create a robust governance structure that enhances resilience and autonomy in the face of external pressures.

2. Internal Conflict Resolution

To prevent internal conflicts, housing commons can establish tiered membership systems that clearly define rights and responsibilities for participants, ensuring that roles are transparent and aligned with the community's needs. Proof-of-presence and proof-of-contribution mechanisms can align incentives for members of the network and potentially prevent conflicts or provide an objective basis for resolution.

Additionally, implementing comprehensive conflict resolution protocols at both node (local) and network (global) levels is critical. These protocols may include peer mediation processes or participatory governance systems to resolve disputes collaboratively. By integrating these mechanisms into a transparent governance framework, housing commons can foster trust and maintain cohesion across their networks.

3. Access to Funding

One effective strategy is to implement peer-to-peer (P2P) lending protocols that facilitate long-term financing at fixed interest rates. By leveraging blockchain technology, communities could access smart contract enabled lending/borrowing pools that connect borrowers directly with lenders, eliminating traditional financial intermediaries. This approach allows access to capital beyond the limits of the nation state.

Another innovative funding mechanism is the development of Land Value Tax (LVT) systems for resource redistribution across networks of housing communities. By taxing the unimproved value of land rather than the structures on it, communities can generate revenue that can be redistributed to support less affluent areas. This approach not only promotes efficient land use, discourages speculation and fosters equity among diverse communities by ensuring that wealth generated from land is shared more broadly. Blockchain technology can ensure accountability and fairness in resource allocation across the network.

Additionally, creating staking mechanisms for community funds can provide a sustainable source of income. Members can stake their tokens or assets in a communal fund, earning rewards while contributing to the financial stability of the community. This system not only incentivizes participation but also aligns individual interests with the collective good. If leveraged in incubating phases can ensure communities to create collective saving incentives.

Finally, establishing emergency pools at both node and network levels is vital for addressing unforeseen economic challenges. These pools can be funded through a combination of member contributions, community-generated revenues and staking benefits, providing a financial safety net during crises. Together, these strategies create a robust financial ecosystem that empowers housing commons to thrive sustainably.

4. Economic Accessibility and Sustainability

To enhance economic accessibility and sustainability within housing commons, communities can generate a source of income through offering communal spaces for revenue-generating activities. Some communities could also leverage the digital nomads and market by offering 15-20% of their private spaces for temporary stays creating temporary-permanent communities. By allowing short-term rentals or collaborative workspaces, communities can capitalize on their resources using a wealth transfer mechanism while maintaining a vibrant living environment. This approach not only supports financial sustainability but also encourages interaction among diverse local and global community members.

By offering tiered pricing models or sliding scales that adjust fees according to members' financial situations, housing commons can accommodate a broader range of participants. This flexibility ensures that economic barriers do not prevent individuals from joining and contributing to the community.

Communities can generate income through knowledge-sharing platforms and consulting services. By leveraging the expertise of community members, these platforms can offer workshops, training sessions, and advisory services to external clients or projects.

Moreover, establishing post-mortgage contribution systems can facilitate network growth by allowing members to contribute a percentage of their income after mortgage payments are completed. This system could create a sustainable funding mechanism that supports ongoing network development while recognizing the financial burdens members may face.

Finally, developing solidarity mechanisms for lower-income participants is essential for promoting inclusivity within housing commons. These mechanisms could include subsidized memberships, access to emergency funds, or dedicated support services that help lower-income members thrive within the community.

5. Enhancing Confidence at Scale

Blockchain’s immutable ledgers ensure that all governance decisions—such as votes, resource allocations, or policy changes—are recorded transparently and verifiably, reducing disputes and enhancing trust among members. Smart contracts can automate rule enforcement and resource distribution, ensuring consistency and fairness while minimizing human error or bias.

Additionally, integrating blockchain with existing legal structures could strengthen legitimacy. For example, recognizing smart contract-based decisions within compliant jurisdictions can align innovative governance with traditional legal frameworks.

CONCLUSION

This study has explored the concept of network sovereignties as a means to foster resilient and autonomous housing and land commons, using as a reference Catalan Fundació Emprius.

Through the framework of autonomy and resilience, the analysis shows that Fundació Emprius exemplifies how interconnected nodes within a network sovereignty can better withstand external challenges, such as market pressures and regulatory hurdles, while preserving the integrity of communal land and housing management. Key mechanisms—such as resource-sharing, access to P2P funds and wealth transfer mechanisms—emerge as vital in enhancing both the internal cohesion, economical sustainability and external legitimacy of network sovereignties at scale.

Future research should further investigate strategies for avoiding external capture, access to funding, exploring the wealth transfer mechanisms, and enhancing trust and confidence at scale. These areas are crucial to developing robust frameworks for network sovereignties that can adapt to various pressures while supporting equitable, community-led governance. As societies face growing inequality and ecological challenges, the evolution of network sovereignties holds significant promise as a model for sustainable alternatives to conventional property and governance systems.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research article would not have been possible without the members of Fundació Emprius, who embraced the proposal to write about their work and generously engaged in conversations about their project's journey and the challenges they face—challenges that are, in fact, widely applicable to many other housing communities. Thank you, Alba, Anna, Joan, Alex, and Laura!

A heartfelt thanks to SOAM for fostering such an intellectually stimulating and much-needed program that advances the narrative of network sovereignties—an essential endeavor in expanding the commons framework amid our current civilizational transition. Special thanks to Felix Beer and Sofía Cossar. A particular appreciation to Sofia for her invaluable guidance throughout the research and writing process. Her editorial work has undoubtedly turned this article into a much stronger piece.

Finally, thank you to everyone who contributed their insights and feedback: Felix Beer, Michel Bauwens, Morgan Richards, Pekko, Jeff Emett, Charlie Fisher, and Jordi Aulet. Your input has been instrumental in shaping this article.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Algarra, D. (2015). El comú català. La història dels que no surten a la història. Potlach Ediciones.

Bauwens, M. (2022). Blockchain revolution. Great Transition Initiative. https://greattransition.org/gti-forum/tech-future-bauwens

Bauwens, M., & Ramos, J. (2018). Re-imagining the left through an ecology of the commons: Towards a post-capitalist commons transition. Global Discourse, 8(2), 325-342.

Bauwens, M., Kostakis, V., & Pazaitis, A. (2019). The cosmo-local reader: A new politics of local and global production. P2P Foundation.

Blackstone, W. (1893). Commentaries on the laws of England in four books (J.B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia, 1753/1893 reprint).

Bollier, D., & Helfrich, S. (2019). Free, fair & alive: The insurgent power of the commons. New Society Publishers.

De Filippi, P., & Wright, A. (2018). Blockchain and the law: The rule of code. Harvard University Press.

Galiani, S., & Schargrodsky, E. (2010). Property rights for the poor: Effects of land titling. Journal of Public Economics, 94(9-10), 700-729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.01.005

Hickel, J. (2017). The divide: A brief guide to global inequality and its solutions. Penguin Press.
International Land Coalition. (2019). Rethinking tenure: Community rights in a globalized economy.

Kostakis, V., & Bauwens, M. (2017). Design global, manufacture local: Exploring the contours of an emerging productive model. Futures, 93, 126-135.

Nabben, K., & Zargham, M. (2022). Aligning ‘Decentralized Autonomous Organization’ to precedents in cybernetics. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4077358

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.

Owen, R. (1816). A new view of society: or, essays on the principle of the formation of the human character and the application of the principle to practice.

P2P Foundation. (n.d.). Category talk: Housing. P2P Foundation Wiki. Retrieved from https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Category_talk:Housing

P2P Foundation. (n.d.). Category: Peerproperty. P2P Foundation Wiki. Retrieved from https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Category:Peerproperty

Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. Beacon Press.

Rights and Resources Initiative. (2023). Who owns the world's land? Global state of indigenous, afro-descendant and local community land rights recognition from 2015-2020. The second edition. https://rightsandresources.org/wp-content/uploads/Who-Owns-the-Worlds-Land_Final-EN.pdf

Rochfeld, J., Cornu, M., & Martin, G.J. (2021). L’échelle de communalité: Propositions de réforme pour intégrer les biens communs en droit. (Rapport n° 17-34). Recherche Droit et Justice. http://www.gip-recherche-justice.fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Rapport-17-34-final-Juin-2021.pdf

Thompson, E.P. (1993). Customs in common: Studies in traditional popular culture. New Press.

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. (2017). Global Land Outlook, first edition. Bonn, Germany.
https://www.unccd.int/sites/default/files/documents/2017-09/GLO_Full_Report_low_res.pdf

United Nations Environment Programme. (2021). Global assessment of deforestation and land degradation. UNEP Report.
https://www.unep.org/resources/state-worlds-forests-forests-biodiversity-and-people

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. (2017). Global Land Outlook, first edition. Bonn, Germany.
https://www.unccd.int/sites/default/files/documents/2017-09/GLO_Full_Report_low_res.pdf

---

1. Catalonia's rich cultural heritage include folklore like castellers, sardanes, correfocs, gegants i capgrossos, el Tió, el caganer, les calçotades, La Castanyada, havaneres, caramelles, etc. ↩︎

2. Community-managed irrigation networks (comunitats de regants) date back to medieval times, involving local farmers to collectively manage water resources for agriculture. The systems are legally recognized through cooperatives, playing a crucial role in Catalan agriculture. ↩︎

3. This is clearly illustrated by the many Designation of Origin (DO) certifications awarded to regional specialties. ↩︎

4. Guifi is a self-organized network infrastructure with over 37,000 active nodes and approximately 71,000 km of wireless links as of December 2021, it has grown to become one of the largest community networks in the world. Website, last updated 2024, https://guifi.net/ ↩︎

5. On October 1, 2017, Catalonia held a controversial independence referendum organized by civil groups in collaboration with Catalan politicians using collective funds raised for the cause. ↩︎

6. The Andel model is a cooperative housing system where members own shares in a non-profit association to provide affordable, long-term housing rights and community-oriented living. https://www.housingeurope.eu/blog-291/learning-from-each-other-catalonia-meets-denmark ↩︎

7. Catalonia faces a shortage in social housing, despite efforts to expand this sector. The Pla Territorial Sectorial d'Habitatge de Catalunya (2020) aims to increase social housing, but current levels remain low due to historical underinvestment and misaligned policies, as social housing owners and municipalities were able to sell subsidized homes at market rates after a certain period. To this day, Catalonia has one of the lowest percentages of social housing in Europe compared to the European average of 15%.
   Font: https://observatoridesc.org/ ↩︎

8. In Vienna, 60% of the population lives in subsidized or social housing, supported by €600 million in annual subsidies, public-private partnerships, and high-income caps that promote mixed-income communities. Copenhagen mandates that 25% of new developments be affordable, with 20% of housing in non-profit associations and 30% in cooperatives, supported by government loans covering up to 90% of construction costs. Both cities prioritize long-term affordability through rent controls, cooperative ownership, and substantial public investment. Fonts: https://www.vienna-model.at/en/publikation/ & https://www.norden.org/en/publication/nordic-economic-policy-review-2021-nordic-housing-markets-and-policies ↩︎