Page updated:
Friday, 7 September 2007

SPECIAL REPORT...

The permaculture papers

ENDNOTE

It has become more than this. Although I intended to raise questions about the structure and direction of the design system, that aspect has become a larger part than I intended. I considered editing some of it out but thought it may be worth retaining even though it is speculative in part.

Influencing me in making this decision was feedback from the USA. This arrived by email, the writer having read the entirety of The Permaculture Papers. I congratulated him on his persistence and learned that, before reading the Papers, he had formed a negative impression of Bill Mollison. This he amended after reading and discussing it with me. He commented favourably on the reporting in the Papers of controversies within Permaculture as well as its positive aspects and then went on to learn more about the design system and to attend training.

Judging qualities and merits

In writing, I have tried to offer a supportive critique of Permaculture as I have experienced it, to "judge the qualities or merits", as the above-mentioned dictionary defines "critique". In doing this I was encouraged by the statement of author and educator, Edward de Bono, that: "Disagreement implies a regard for the truth... even though disagreement can be unpleasant, it is often necessary both for the sake of truth and in order to investigate any issue objectively and fully".

Although I have reported the truth as I experienced it, The Permaculture Papers is not intended to be an objective account because it is memoir and opinion and, therefore, documents subjective experience. The entire notion of objectivity, anyway, is a bit dodgy in its assumption that a writer can somehow stand outside of personal experience, values and beliefs and look dispassionately at something.

Transitional phase

Permaculture, as I write in 2004, is in a transitional period in Australia with the accredited Permaculture training making a start. As stated in other chapters, I believe the training to be a move in the right direction at the same time that I retain the hope that the existing Permaculture Design Course will still find a place as non-accredited, cheaper, community-level education. So far, it appears that this will happen.

According to the field of study known as systems dynamics, you cannot introduce substantial change to a system without producing an effect, most likely unanticipated, elsewhere in the system at some time. The accredited Permaculture training may bring such effects to the way the design system is taught and to the options for study but probably not for some time after the training is fully underway. Time will tell.

Dealing with trends

I have suggested that the design system became less publicly prominent in the late-1990s and that the loss of the Permaculture International Journal worsened this situation. While this remains true, the system retained a background level of participation and, by late-2005 was showing signs of renewed vigour.

A sense of continuity

The permaculture-oceania listserver, the main online discussion space for Permaculture practitioners in Australia - has been instrumental in maintaining a presence for the design system and for maintaining a cohesiveness, a sense of inclusion experienced by those that participate in it.

To some extent the listserver fills the role of the defunct Permaculture International Journal, especially the networking function that keeps practitioners informed about events throughout the country. It played a role in maintaining a sense of continuity following the demise of the Journal and must be given credit for helping keep the design system alive. Not that it was likely to disappear with the loss of the Journal, however it would have been the lesser without the listserver.

Permaculturists and community food systems

Permaculture-trained individuals, if not Permaculture in the form of community-based organisations or professional designers, have been instrumental in popularising community food gardens and in providing training to the gardeners. This took place, for the most part, after 1995 and continues today, mainly through the Australian City Farms & Community Gardens Network (www.communitygarden.org.au), a coalition of people supporting and participating in the practice. The experience suggests that Permaculture has a potentially greater role in the popularising of a broader community food system that encompasses farmers markets, food coops and organic food retailers as well as community gardens, however it will have to deliberately seek out a valid, useful niche within this growing local food milieu if it is to participate.

Community food systems are already established - the rapid increase in the number of farmers markets in metropolitan and regional cities and towns is evidence. At the same time there is a growing politicisation of food that goes beyong issues such as organics and genetic modification of crops. The establishment of food issue alliances in Sydney (Food Fairness Alliance) and the Illawarra (on the NSW South Coast) that include health and nutrition workers, churches and local government staff, is recent but participants had already held public forums and made submissions to state government planning processes by the end of 2005.

There is space within these alliances for permaculturists and the diverse make-up of the alliances would help cross-fertilise Permaculture ideas, however there was only a single permaculturist at the first Sydney alliance meeting (a lone woman from the Blue Mountains) though people from the Permaculture milieu were present as representatives of other organisations. The time might be passing in which the movement can establish a presence in this field if it wants representation under its own banner. The reason that Permaculture, as a unified entity, may not act in a more cohesive, organisational way is that it is too decentralised to support such an initiative. The experience seems to be that permaculturists act individually or within other organisations rather than as a collective body.

Proponents of the accredited training have suggested that community gardening could become a source of paid employment for graduates. There are already a handful of people in paid employment in community gardening, itself a significant achievement compared with the situation of a decade ago, and if this trend continues it could offer possibilities to graduates of the accredited training. The potential to absorb and fund Permaculture graduates is, however, extremely limited. Community gardening remains a largely voluntary activity with much of the informal and formal training carried out by voluntary trainers.

New training opportunities

The arrival of the accredited training may boost Permaculture's prospects, however concern that an over-supply of accredited trainers will eventuate will not be realised for some time, if ever. Those in the first wave of accredited training are still completing their courses as I write. The fact that established trainers offer the accredited courses represents a consolidation of training as an economic activity rather than an expansion of it.

In late-2005, a community gardener, a qualified horticulturist and landscape technician who provides training in the garden she coordinates in Sydney, commented that " ...PDCs are so expensive.... they are neartly $1000". Comments about the cost of courses are not new. The only thing that has changed over the years is the sum that is quoted. Proponents of accredited training claim that the courses will make Permaculture available to those who cannot afford the cost of the existing PDC as students are eligible for a government training subsidy. As of January 2005, they were optimistic about its potential and have talked up its prospects, however hubris is to be expected when something new is launched. A more sober judgement can be made in a few years although there appears to be no reason why Permaculture design should not become established as a bona-fide and popular field of study. What will strongly influence its attraction is the workplace demand for graduates.

Those involved in the new training are wary of its institutionalisation and claim that it will not become like other courses offered through the tertiary education system because the 'Permaculture community' owns the course. But the notion of ownership by some 'Permaculture community' is ambiguous and use of the term seems a little imprecise. What community is this and in what sense do they 'own' the training? How are they constituted as a community? There has been no definition of what is meant by the term.

I am not arguing against the notion, only calling for definition. Do they mean that Permaculture International and its members are a community? Membership certainly positions members as a community of interest, but in what sense do they influence the courses, assuming influence to be a property of ownership? It is up to the membership to determine whether they feel part of a 'Permaculture community' that shares ownership. As for the wider, unaffiliated body of Permaculturists, it is difficult to imagine how they constitute a community except in a very-general sense of the term.

Permaculture in a changing society

Discussion with people who work closely with those in their twenties and thirties reveals that many in that age group have never heard of Permaculture and see little of value in it. Their lives are urban, their jobs are stressful and are often their focus in life.

Social researcher, Hugh Mackay, had found that the friendship networks of this cohort frequently consist of urban 'tribes' rather than an identification with larger formations in society. Research indicates that this younger group is tired of being marketed to and preached to about environmental and other issues and avoids participation in movements to change society because they are pessimistic of achieving anything. Ideologies, it seems, are passe.

It is obvious that this is not an all-enveloping trend because young people do join groups, like Permaculture associations, and attempt to influence society and the political process and are concerned about environment and other issues. A trend is not a universal phenomenon but its existence implies that it is true in general. The question is whether Permaculture can attract the youth demographic in sufficient numbers to recruit participants at a rate that ensures the design system's continuity. Pertinent is whether permaculturists make an effort to understand contemporary youth worldviews and attitudes sufficiently to communicate effectively. Today's society is substantially different to that at the time of Permaculture's origin and the succeeding decades. How can Permaculture modernise its appearance and structure to effectively engage with this group?

Conversation and observation led me to propose a reconfiguration of Permaculture so that it could address some of the concerns of this younger demographic. To do this, I concluded that the 'old' model of Permaculture with its focus on rural smallholdings, farm design and home food production was no longer adequate. The design system's terms of reference might be broadened and urbanised and lifestyle factors such as livelihood, the work/ life mix, group and interpersonal skills could be addressed.

At the time of writing, there appears to be a public conversation about democracy and due process in government emerging. It is not possible, at this stage, to guess whether this will become a civil movement of some sort, yet it is pertinent to the design system's social ethic - that of peoplecare and sharing resources. Permaculture is supposed to be a holistic system, so including factors important in life, those that go beyond food and gardening, would presumably make it more relevant to urban people.

No mean feat, I know, and perhaps all too much for Permaculture to deal with. I do not propose that all these things be incorporated formally within the design system, just that they be acknowledged as pertinent to Permaculture and in addressed in some way, if for nothing more than they are the lived reality of practitioners and of a great many people outside the Permaculture milieu. The danger is that in ignoring contemporary issues Permaculture marginalises itself. If Permaculture can in some way offer models or ideas for rethinking their life concerns then it might find new uses and new participants among younger people.

In raising such questions about the direction and future of the design system while editor of Permaculture International Limited's The Planet newsletter, I received critical feedback and accusations of 'negativity'. This was fine - critical feedback comes with writing about controversial issues and it can stimulate discussion on important topics - however it did indicate the existence of a conservative strand of thinking in the movement and a limited view of what Permaculture should address. This will not do in a society undergoing rapid and substantial change.

Keeping the end in mind

In over 20 years of association with Permaculture I have met many people doing good work. Some of them are still active in Permaculture but others have moved on.

Many carry on their work without the label of 'Permaculture'. I wonder why this is so, why have they exhausted the system's possibilities while still retaining the ethics and principles? Labels, however, do not matter. It is what people do that makes a difference. If Permaculture has in some way influenced what they do then it can be counted a success. Permaculture is an enabling technology, a body of knowledge that makes it possible to achieve the goals set out in the Permaculture ethics. It does not matter whether people work under the banner of Permaculture or whether they integrate Permaculture ethics and ideas under some other name.

What matters is keeping the end in mind, and the end of the Permaculture design system is societies that are socially just, convivial and cooperative; it is habitation that complements the natural environment and uses resources in a considered manner. Permaculture is about societies that are socially and environmentally sustainable.