[Pil-pc-oceania] PCC newsletter

[pacific-edge]

On 4/6/07 4:25 PM, "Vicky Gear" <vickyg at aapt.net.au> wrote:

> Hi All
> Here is the latest PCC newsletter, as you will see we have been out and about
> spreading the permie word.

Permaculture Central coast's newsletter - The Permie - is always a pleasure
to receive because the editor and designer pay attention to useability - the
editing of stories and design and layout that makes reading easy.

Reading the lead story in the latest issue, 'Getting Organised' - Volume 1
Issue 8 June 2007 - was to experience a bout of deja vu because it revisits
a discussion that has surfaced repeatedly within Permaculture. That is,
whether Permaculture works best as a centralised or decentralised movement.
It's a dilemma that has reappeared at Permaculture convergences over the
years and it's obviously one that still has plenty of currency.

The story in The Permie reports an address by Permaculture North president,
Penny Pyett, in which Penny is reported as urging the movement to become
more organised. I have no general disagreement with what Penny writes. As
someone who has sometimes felt frustrated by the invisibility of
Permaculture in public fora and who has on occasion advocated some level of
higher organisation, but who fears that something could be lost in doing so,
may I comment on some of Penny's reported ideas?


ALTERNATIVE OR MAINSTREAM?
The article states: "For those with an interest in ensuring Permaculture
becomes more a mainstream environmental solution rather than an
Œalternative¹ idea... ".

May we make a brief excursion into history?

Permaculture once laboured under the perception that it was a 'hippy'
activity. Hippies, of course, like the dodo and the Thylacine, disappeared
long ago but the mythology, as always, lingers, although this particular
perception of Permaculture I thought had been laid to rest by the late
1990s.

'Alternative' is not 'hippy' and it is reasonable to view Permaculture in
its early iteration as an outgrowth of the alternative movement of the
1970s, the decade of its origin. That should not be surprising as it was
from that movement that progressive social ideas as well as the environment
movement came, as did many of Permaculture's early adoptors.

But I'm not sure that it's accurate to refer to the alternative movement as
if it continues to exist. It was a social phenomenon that grew out of a
unique period of Australian history and, in my opinion, is now part of
social history rather than current reality. The movement was the product of
the boom in youth numbers coming of age in that decade, a cohort that was
fortunate enough to find itself growing up amidst the opportunities brought
by the economic growth and affluence of the time and the blossoming of new
ideas stemming from technological development and social change. Now,
however, is not then, and I wonder if history has finally broken the link
between Permaculture and alternative.

But I understand where Penny's coming from, but in place of refering to
Permaculture as alternative movement, may I propose 'fringe' as a more
accurate term? I suggest this because theories of idea dissemination posit
the new and innovative moving from the fringe of society towards the
mainstream if the ideas have what Martin Gladwell (author, 'The Tipping
Point') calls 'stickiness'... a property of adherence that comes from the
idea being attractive, answering some need, making possible the doing of
something that could not have been done before or allowing us to do
something better that we already can.

Permculture has not been all that sticky to the mainstream but, propelled by
world events and the changes now taking place, it is becoming more so. In
part, and especially in the UK, this is because Permaculture has become part
of the relocalisation movement that has arisen as a response to Peak Oil and
global warming. It seems that when Permaculture has a big picture to hang
from it does better than it does alone.


ORGANISED AND STRUCTURED OR DISORGANISED AND SCATTERED?
The article states: "Penny¹s main point was about the need for the
Permaculture movement to get organised and structured. As Penny so rightly
explained... the bigger and better organised you are, the more likely you
will be heard by those who most need to hear".

The idea of a more formal and centralised structure for the movement - these
things would most likely be part of Permculture becoming more "organised and
structured" - has a long and somewhat contentious history. And Penny is
right - to be heard at the social/institutional/political level, being
organised helps because you have to be seen as representing a substantial
body of opinion to be seen as credible. As journalists might ask when seeing
some announcement from an unknown Permaculture organisation: "are they
representative or is it just two people with a fax machine?'.

To increase the design system's influence among decision makers may involve
a higher public profile and engaging in public discourse - you have to be
visible and have a presence. This might present a challenge to some in the
movement because there has been ambivalence to participating in advocacy.


COMPARISION WITH INSTITUTIONS
The article states: "Some examples of movements that are well organised and
consequently have a voice in Australia are organisations like The Country
Women¹s Association, The Returned Services League"...

May I suggest that a more useful comparison would be the environment
movement as its origins lay in the same milieu as Permaculture. The CWA and
RSL grew out of a different history, one which, especially with the RSL,
fostered its rapid absorption into society because so many of its members
had a shared experience.


UNCOORDNATED BUT ENTHUSIASTIC VOLUNTEERS
The article states: "... Permaculture in Australia is not a coordinated
movement as such, it is in fact many enthusiastic individuals and groups
Australia wide, all of whom have common goals, but also who have no
centralised or systematic approach. In fact there is a lack of cohesiveness
across the permaculture regions, organisations and the movement in general.
That is, there is no established or supported organisational structure".

Penny is right in her description of Permaculture as made up of
uncoordinated individuals and groups doing their own thing where they live.
But doing their own thing can certainly be systematic and coordinated at the
regional/local level... Permaculture South Australia, for instance, has an
active program of local activity.

I wrote at the start of this commentary that contradictory attitudes towards
centralisation and decentralisation have existed within the Permaculture
movement. I was swayed towards the idea of a more structured movement when
someone spoke to me about the way the Bushcare/bush regeneration movement
quickly structured itself, formulated formal TAFE training and established
paid positions within local government and in small business. Riding the
wave of popularity that developed around native plants, and pushing that
ideological barrow itself, bush regeneration has gained perhaps an
inordinate level of influence in local government and has caused, on
occasion, more than a little difficulty for Permaculture in its linking of
the design system with bushland weeds. Fortunately, that seems to have
receded in recent years, but the point is the success that the bush
regeneration movement has achieved through a more formal structure.

Permaculture simulates the training of the bush regeneration experience in a
lesser form through its Permaculture design courses and, now, the accredited
training. It differs in that the design system has not developed the
advocacy of the bush regenerators nor sought to emulate their role in local
government. I may be talking mainly about the NSW experience here as I'm not
familiar with the history of bush regeneration as a movement in other
states. What's important is whether that movement holds any lessons or
models for Permaculture's ddevelopment.

Critics of a more centralised structure have raised the idea that
permaculture has, at its core, an approach and methodology founded in
independent, localised actions. The ideology of bioregionalism that came
into Permaculture from the USA in the late 1980s certainly pushed this
strand of thinking and probably continues to influence it.

You can see the validity of both arguments and it gets down to what social
role and future you see for Permaculture, and that seems to be quite a
variable thing because Permaculture is, in reality, an alliance of
organisations that adopt different foci for their activity and of
individuals with a wide ambit of political, ideological and economic
allegiences. The various sets of Permaculture principles (Mollison,
Holmgren, Morrow and my own), while compatible, are variable enough to
accommodate a broad range of interpretation and application.

This brings us to something that has seldom, if ever, been articulated - the
need for a 'grand narrative' of Permaculture - a cohesive, achievable vision
of what a society influenced by Permaculture would look like. This is a
difficult thing to do and to claim any such vision as Permaculture's alone
might be challenged because many of the ideas Permaculture has incorporated
into its knowledge base are also promoted by other sustainability
organisations. Some may have originally been adopted from them.

Way back in Permaculture One, the design system was described as a
'synthesis', and that means that it borrows from others and repurposes those
borrowings or integrates them into a larger scheme. This accounts for the
substantial overlap between Permaculture and the broad but largely
unstructured sustainability movement, another entity that is an example of
Penny's "uncoordinated organisations and individuals" but one with a
powerful public voice and capable of joint action towards a common goal.

PIL?
The article states that there exists "no established or supported
organisational structure" within Permaculture. So much is obviously true
and, unless the ground of opinion has shifted substantially over recent
years, I suspect there would be substantial opposition to the centralisation
of Permaculture in Australia. Any attempt to do this would have to answer
questions about representation and legitimacy.

The objections are predictable: How would a central organisation be
structured to be democratic and representative? How would Permaculture be
governed? Who would officially speak for Permaculture? Could others make
public statements? What would the official Permaculture line on something be
and how would you deal with differences of opinion?

Permaculture International Limited (PIL) is the closest Permaculture has
come to having a central representative body, but PIL represents only its
members, not the design systems as a whole. PIL was established in the 1980s
to publish Permaculture International Journal. The difficulty is that PIL is
underresourced, which limits its range of activity and what it can offer to
potential members. Getting paying members has always been a challenge and,
as far as I know, it still is. Would Australian permaculturists be willing
to recognise PIL as a peak body representing design system practitioners on
behalf of the entire movement and giving the design system a national voice?
Would they resource it, through paid memberships, to enable it to carry out
this mission?

SYDNEY IN PARTICULAR
The article states: "From a PCC perspective, a more organised structure in
the Sydney and surrounding region will be of benefit to our membership".

The point about representation and legitimacy stated above applies here,
too. Because it evolved in an ad hoc manner and because it did not take on a
structure like a franchise operation in which Permaculture practice licences
could be issued (yes, it was discussed), Permaculture has no legal structure
to allow a single entity, including a coalition of Permaculture
associations, to claim to speak for or represent the entire practice in a
region. Anyone - any individual or organisation - could set up and claim to
speak for the design system or simply to position itself as a 'second voice'
in Permaulture with the same legitimacy and any other. Clearly, in the worse
cases, this could lead to dissention and fragmentation.

The Sydney region once had an organisation that provided a high degree of
networking and shared activity. That was Permaculture Sydney, a group that
drew membership and participation from all over the metropolitan area rather
than from a defined region within it. It came into existence through Robyn
Francis in the mid-1980s when it was based at the Permaculture Epicentre.
Permaculture Sydney was later revived by Ian Mason, Brad Nott and a few of
us in the early 1990s. Local groups were spawned from Permaculture Sydney -
Permaculture Inner West, Permaculture South and Permaculture North.
Towards the end of the decade, permacultures Sydney and North jointly
developed and shared management of a substantial website which provided
information on the design system and served as a first point of contact for
Permaculture in the region.

Rather than a centralised organisation for the Sydney region, why not a
structure similar to that of the Australian City Farms & Community Gardens
Network, which, in its different cities, hosts regional networks of
community gardens and sustanability education centres which come together
for shared learning and networking. This has proven to be a successful
structure because it allows the Network to speak as an entity but does not
restrict local independence. In political terms, is is called federalism.
The Network is less a peak body than a major node within an extensive
regional network and, like such nodes, becomes a transit point for
information flow and a first point of contact.

What about unassociated individuals when it comes to regional coalitions of
Permaculture associations? There are plenty of individuals not linked with
any Permaculture group. Last Sunday, at Sydney's green building expo, I was
speaking with Permaculture activist Sue Mossman who asked where are all
those Sydney permaculturists that have completed PDCs and other Permaculture
training? As I said to Sue, that's a question we have asked for some time.
Why have they come back from their courses to fade into the urban
background? A regional network could establish places for these unattached
individuals.

Many of those individuals work with Permaculture ethics, principles and
approaches within other organisations. Immediately, I can think of half a
dozen and more in the Sydney region. They are not members of Permaculture
organisations but they act out their Permaculture motivations without
branding what they do as Permaculture. In fact, if we look right back to
Permaculture's time of origin, we find Bill Mollison discussing the design
system as if it were to be used in just this way - ie. by individuals in
their livelihoods and within other organisations.

Whether Permaculture should be a thing-in-itself or an approach applied
within other fields of endeavour has been discussed on this listserver in
the past and I don't think it is seen as a problem. What is Permaculture if
it is not primarily a set of ethics, a set of principles, an approach to
action and a way of thinking? These things, I believe, are the core of the
design system and when acted upon, then Permaculture is being done even
though the word might not be mentioned. This is not to suggest that the
design system should not be branded with its own name where prudent and
possible, for that remains important to maintaining a presence for
Permaculture in the social marketplace for ideas.

We can seee that the centralised/decentralised argument is a complex one. I
see value in both arguments. Rather than rushing in to set up a netowrk or
more formal structure, perhaps a starting point might be to define a shared
vision for Permaculture in the region, its relationship to instititions,
it's opportunities and constraints.

...Russ Grayson