If localism refers primarily to governance, and localization is a response to economic globalization, then relocalization can be defined as a response to peak oil and climate change.

As a member of a group that was part of the Post Carbon Institute’s Relocalization Network, we found the distinction to be important, especially due to the fact that we were in a community where the flagship organization of the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies already existed (Sustainable Connections).

Here’s how the Relocalization Network defined the term:
“Relocalization is a strategy to build societies based on the local production of food, energy and goods, and the local development of currency, governance and culture. The main goals of Relocalization are to increase community energy security, to strengthen local economies, and to dramatically improve environmental conditions and social equity.
The Relocalization strategy developed in response to the environmental, social, political and economic impacts of global over-reliance on cheap energy. Our dependence on cheap non-renewable fossil fuel energy has produced climate change, the erosion of community, wars for oil-rich land and the instability of the global economic system.
The tagline the Relocalization Network used, to put the term into the smallest nutshell was “Reduce Consumption; Produce Locally.”

Jason Bradford wrote a greate piece on Relocalization for the Oil Drum. He characterized the idea as follows:

“The case for relocalization will be made in the context of responding sensibly to two problems facing societies right now: climate change and peak oil and gas. Both problems are a result of our dependency on fossil fuels, but some solutions to one will only exacerbate the other. This is why a new approach, that of relocalization, is necessary.
Relocalization is based on a systems approach that doesn’t solve one set of problems only to make another problem worse.

…Relocalization starts from the premise that the world is a finite place and that humanity is in a state of overshoot. Perpetual growth of the economy and the population is neither possible nor desirable. It is wise to start planning now for a world with less available energy, not more.
…While we can’t know future threats precisely, scientists do agree that creating a carbon-cycle neutral economy should be the dominant task occupying our minds. This is exactly what Relocalization aims to do.
…Relocalization advocates rebuilding more balanced local economies that emphasize securing basic needs. Local food, energy and water systems are perhaps the most critical to build. In the absence of reliable trade partners, whether from peak oil, natural disaster or political instability, a local economy that at least produces its essential goods will have a true comparative advantage.
…Instead of working to keep a system going that has no future, it calls us to develop means of livelihood that pollute as little as possible and that promote local and regional stability. Since much of our pollution results from the distances goods travel, we must shorten distances between production and consumption as much as we can.
…Relocalization recognizes the liabilities of fossil fuel dependency and promotes greater security through redevelopment of local and regional economies more or less self-reliant in terms of energy, food and water systems. Many social benefits might accrue to a relocalized society, including greater job stability, employment diversity, community cohesion, and public health.”

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2598

Since the Relocalization Network folded into Transition US, the term has fallen from use, replaced by the more easily understandable concept of community resilience, which more or less covers the same territory.

This also brings up interesting questions around localism, sustainability, and regional environmental awareness. How will such awareness vary from rural folks in the US midwest and south, as opposed to more “progressive” folks on the west and east coasts?

The people in the red states are more directly tied to the land, while, as a group, the city dwellers may very well profess more environmental awareness. Interesting questions. I couldn’t say how this would apply to the UK, but here in the US we face pretty stark cultural divides, as I’m sure you know.

I believe there needs to be a lot more local autonomy, going as far as the idea of city-states, very loosely tied to the center.I am reminded of where I grew up, the island of Jersey. Fully self-governing, with local currency, taxation, education, and the potential for food self-sufficiency. Very dependent on imported fossil fuels and water-poor at peak demand, but otherwise a model that should be replicated much more widely.

“Localism and localisation” ? These may be seen as social and demographic forms of “counter urbaninisation”(Search Wikipedia).

“Urbanism and urbanisation” feature in the discipline of Urban Anthropology. Anthropology has a special interest in the local, often in relation to domination from wider systems.As I understand it, “urbanism”s beliefs and social forces, whereas “urbanisation” is the the city-forming development across a landscape, region or the planet.Likewise for “localism” and “localisation”,except usually in reverse, and often as with the Degrowth and Transition movements with a bias against the globalising political economy – with the exception of the information economy.

Thus “transition towns culture” (TTC) is one kind of localism,or perhaps a radical new urbanism.

Because the “ism” exists in a contested field of ideas and ideologies, it must deal with issues of domination, legitimation, resistance and change.

The Wikipedia take on “Urban Anthropology” has a reference to the eminent urban sociologist Manual Castells, whose “political economy” approach could help inform the Transition Towns movement: We gotta know what we are dealing with in “transitionism” and “Transitionalisation”, apart from painfully big words!
Ref.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Castells

But isn’t it that the major difference stem from the fact that one is a top down approach that tries to improve the governance and management of people and resources, while the other come from a bottom up concern. The latter will undoubtedly request , local/close, transparent development with local resources for local people.

The problem to reach the latter is that we need local people to be informed about the issues, feel responsible and concerned to a point that they want to be involved or understand/agree with the latter.

This is not easy to find here in SA mainly because majority are not being informed, claim that it is up to the Gov to show the example and have anyway short term issues that hide long term concerns.

Regards

PL

‘Localisation’ on the other hand, is easy to replace in most contexts with ‘living more locally’, where it’s immediately more comprehensible and ‘normal’, conveying: this is something we already do to some extent – let’s just do more of it.

I don’t know about you in the south, but in Scotland we’re always being told that the language we use is alienating to ‘ordinary’ people. I had a great conversation with a friend who was telling me that popular movements in South America have no problem with using complex language and technical vocabulary with villagers and other ‘ordinary’ people, they just make sure that they explain their terms (and I guess make sure that these are truly useful words in the first place). And there is a fine tradition of working class intellectualism in this country as well.

Cheers from a rather sleepy Eva!

Lambeth is pioneering the Cooperative Council. Lots of worthy generalised hot air but scared of participatory budgeting or a more horizontal approach or users designing services.

The local strategic partnership – who acknowledge that their first Sustainable Community Strategy contained no sustainability have offered to meet the Lambeth Sustainability Forum and consult with it on its final draft. We will change that.

There are many opportunities to change local government but we have to be friendly but radical. They can now hear ‘rethink the way we do everything’ in a way they couldn’t a year ago. They can believe that this is not just recession which we must ‘come through’. Changing the paradigm is on the agenda.