[Pil-pc-oceania] PCC newsletter/Permaculture Directions and PIL

[David Arnold]

Nice metaphor about the fungi Tim.

The fungal hyphae of our permaculture network may well spread across oceans,
but I feel it may simplify the focus for PIL if it were to be renamed
Permaculture Australia.

Dave



On 05/06/07, timwinton <timwinton at internode.on.net> wrote:
>
> I heard a story recently about some research that indicated fungal
> networks
> in woodland areas of Africa could communicate in complex ways over large
> areas. The study claimed that interconnected fungi alerted groves of trees
> about the presence of browsing elephants in distant stands. The trees
> would
> then emit bitter compounds into their leaves making them unpalatable
> before
> the elephants got there. Fungal networks have no identifiable center, but
> occasionally they become visible as fruiting bodies. This may be a model
> for
> permaculture as a 'linking' discipline- loose networks working mostly
> autonomously that can communicate effectively and periodically coordinate
> for major activities.
>
> PIL has been through a major transformation in the last few years from an
> organization with a physical publication and a physical office to a
> virtual
> organization based on a web site, listserve and some core permaculture
> functions. The board has recently made a decision to commit some energy to
> networking and communication among regional pc groups. We are essentially
> using the Community Gardens network approach. The idea is to improve basic
> networking and communication functions between groups and members without
> seeking to become an exclusive center. Historically it has been a major
> node
> in the network and now that it has been restructured we intend to offer up
> that possibility again.
>
> If you would like to assist with the networking and communications
> subcommittee please email me off list.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tim
>
> --
> Tim Winton
> Director
> Permaculture International Limited
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "pacific-edge" <info at pacific-edge.info>
> To: "Vicky Gear" <vickyg at aapt.net.au>; "pil"
> <pil-pc-oceania at lists.permacultureinternational.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 12:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [Pil-pc-oceania] PCC newsletter
>
>
> 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
> Oalternative¹ 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pil-pc-oceania mailing list
> Pil-pc-oceania at lists.permacultureinternational.org
> http://jasper.cmsarchitects.com/mailman/listinfo/pil-pc-oceania
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: 6/4/2007
> 6:43
> PM
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pil-pc-oceania mailing list
> Pil-pc-oceania at lists.permacultureinternational.org
> http://jasper.cmsarchitects.com/mailman/listinfo/pil-pc-oceania
>



-- 
David Arnold
Permaculture Designer
4446 Murchison Rd
Violet Town VIC AUS 3669
03 5798 1679
arnold.vt at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://jasper.cmsarchitects.com/pipermail/pil-pc-oceania/attachments/20070606/3a77a2d3/attachment-0001.html